were divided the judgment below would be af-
firmed. If one judge out of three be taken sick,
we should have only two to reverse or affirm.
And besides, what is experience on this subject?
We have had six judges in Maryland since 1805.
The Supreme Court of the United States has at
times been composed of an even number of
judges. And in other States there are an even
number. The United States Courts consist of
two judges. We have not heard of any inconve-
nience from this arrangement elsewhere. Why
then shall be apprehended any in Maryland? As
to the difference in the expense of three and four
judges, Mr. T. thought it too small a considera-
tion to be allowed to weigh one moment in a mat-
ter of so much importance,
The question being taken on striking out, re-
sulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't, pro. tem.,
Morgan, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Weems, Dalrymple,
Howard, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Den-
nis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Phelps, Tuck, Sprigg, Spen-
cer, Shriver, Gaither. Annan, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Schley, Fiery, Kilgour and Smith—33.
Negative— Messrs. Sollers, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Colston, Miller, Bowie, George, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Johnson, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson,
Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stew-
art, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Ware, Harbine, Brewer, Anderson, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke and Shower
—34.
When the name of Mr. SOLLERS was called,
that gentleman said—"I vote against the amend-
ment, because I vote against every thing that
touches the present judiciary system."
So the Convention refused to strike out.
Mr. SOLLERS proposed to offer a substitute;
but,
The PRESIDENT ruled it not to be in order at
that time.
Mr. DORSEY then moved to amend the 5th
section of the report, by inserting after the word
"law," these words, "being a citizen of the Uni-
ted States and;" also by striking out the words
"a citizen," and inserting in lieu thereof, "a resi-
dent."
Mr. DORSEY remarked, that the Convention
heretofore had seen fit to change what was pro-
posed, and adopt a principle which he wished to
see adopted—that was, to place naturalized citi-
zens in the same condition with the citizens of
other States, If we were again to be brought
back to the odious principle of discrimination, he
thought that some good reasons ought to be as-
signed why a man—a foreigner—when he became
a citizen of the United States, should not, to all
intents and purposes, enjoy all the advantages of
a native-born citizen. He would say that we
ought not to introduce into our Constitution any
unjust, obnoxious distinctions; at least nothing
that should place him in a worse situation than
the citizens of others of the United States. He
was free to say that he would quite as soon trust
a naturalized citizen, if he was an honest and
64 |
trustworthy man, (and unless he were so, he would
not he trusted,) as a northern abolitionist.
Under this proposed section, reported by his
friend on the left, [Mr. Bowie,] who, on aformer
occasion, had thrust himself forward as the
champion of naturalized citizens, and such a
stickler was he for the recognition of their most
unrestricted rights, that he would not, even to
accomplish a great public good, postpone the
exercise of their right of suffrage for five days ;
he insisted that there must be no discrimination
between the rights of naturalized and native born
citizens.
But most suddenly and unexpectedly an entire
revaluation had taken place in the opinions of that
gentleman; more light must have dawned on
his mind; according to the section of his report
now under consideration, a new principle was
introduced apparently in entire variance from
what he heretofore advocated with so much zeal;
and when his remarks, he [Mr. D.] had no doubt
had a most powerful effect on the decision of
this Convention, when that question was before
it. He had introduced a principle that, if a man
had resided five years in the State, and was then
naturalized, immediately after which a vacancy
occurred in a judicial station, yet he was not
eligible to fill it; but to do so, he must reside in
the State five years more, to become eligible for
the vacancy. From which it would follow, that
if an emigrant of the highest character, took up
his residence among us, and remained five years,
having in due form declared his intentions of be-
coming a citizen of the United States, when he
first reached our shores. Although, immediately
upon his arrival, as he well might be, admitted
to practice law in all our courts, and whilst so
doing had pre-eminently distinguished himself
as a citizen and a lawyer; had become natural-
ized at the expiration of his five years residence
yet, if every man in the judicial district desired
to cast his vote for him to fill the vacant judge-
ship, he could not do so until he had resided five
yearn longer in the State. Thus requiring of
him a residence of ten instead of five years.—
Whilst on the other hand, a yankee abolitionist,
who had resided amongst us five years, become
at once eligible to the appointment For this
unjust discrimination he could discover no satis-
factory reason.
We had nothing to fear from opening the door
in the manner he, [Mr. D.] proposed to the nat-
uralized foreigner. He thought that by the de-
cision already made by the Convention, it was
impossible that this proposition of his could be
seriously opposed.
Now, what in this respect was the condition
of things under the existing Constitution.
What qualifications did it require for judicial
appointments? That the persons appointed should
be men of integrity, and sound legal knowledge,
residents of the State of Maryland, A for-
eigner residing in the State for one year, was
as eligible to ahigh judicial appointment, as a
native born or naturalized citizen. No citizen-
ship under the present Constitution of Mary-
land was required. This he thought wrong and |
