Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Sprigg
Fooks and Jacobs—17,
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Sollers, Howard
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowie
Tuck, Spencer, George, Wright, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson,
Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart
of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city,
Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery,
Harbine, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and Shower
—47.
Mr. DIRICKSON moved to amend the section by
striking out "ten," and inserting "six," and de-
manded the yeas and nays on agreeing to his mo-
ion.
And being taken,
Appeared as follows:
The yeas and nays were ordered,
Affirmative—Messrs. Buchanan, Dirickson,
Shriver, Johnson, Biser, Hardcastle, Gwinn.
Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore
city, Ware, Harbine and Brewer—12.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't pro tem.,
Morgan, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Don-
aldson. Dorsey, Wells. Randall, Weems, Sol-
lers, Howard, Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Sherwood of
Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Mil-
ler, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, George,
Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Gai-
ther, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson,
Stewart of Caroline, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Schley, Fiery, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Sli-
cer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and Shower—63.
So the amendment was rejected,
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved to amend the section
by striking out "ten," and inserting "eight."
Mr. HICKS moved to amend the amendment by
striking out "eight," and inserting "three."
The question was first taken on the amendment
of Mr. FITZPATRICK, (the rule providing that the
question shall be first taken on the amendment
proposing the longest time,) and it was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. HICKS, when
Mr. HICKS withdrew said amendment.
A motion was made that the Convention ad-
journ, but was withdrawn at the request of
Mr. CHAMBERS who said, in moving to reconsi-
der the vote, on the number of judges to be provi-
ded for the court of Appeals, he would take oc-
casion to say, he did not think it possible, the
duty could be satisfactorily performed by a smal-
ler number. He had experience upon this sub-
ject and believed the labors of those judges
were by no means understood. The length of
the sessions of the court had been regularly
increasing, and might be expected to be hence-
forth extended to six months in the year. If
three men, of such vigorous health could be selected,
as that neither of them should be detain-
ed from his duties by indisposition, for any por-
tion of the first few sessions, yet he thought the
severe and constant labors, would break down
65 |
their constitutions at a premature period. But
if no remarkable an event should occur, as that
neither one of three men, of rather advanced
age, should be disabled by indisposition in the
course of these long sessions, yet they would
probably have families, and a wife, or a child
might require their presence, to minister to
them in sickness or affliction. To leave only
two judges on the bench of the appellate court,
would certainly nor be desirable. They could
not do the work. The matter of writing opin-
ions, in many cases, is one of great toil and
much time. Often many and conflicting author-
ities are to be carefully collated, and distin-
guished. They cannot possibly do it. If they
could accomplish it; the result would not be, in
many cases satisfactory, especially where a di-
vision of opinion existed. It might happen too,
that more that one would be compelled to leave
the bench, at the same time. Under any cir-
cumstances, he did not think the business of the
court of appeals could be transacted, to the satisfaction
the bar, to the satisfaction of litigants,
or to the satisfaction of the community, with
three judges only. He therefore gave notice of
his intention, to move to-morrow, for a recon-
sideration of the vote of the Convention, on the
amendment offered by Mr. Crisfield, on the 19th
instant, and rejected this morning, in relation
to four judges for the court, of Appeals.
Mr. SPENCER said, that he could not sustain
such a proposition as the one advocated by the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey.)
He, (Mr. S.,) was unwilling to discriminate be-
tween natives and foreigners. But the gentle-
man would provide that if a man had only been
naturalized but one month, he should have all
the privileges of a native born citizen, to hold or
take office, which he, (Mr. Spencer,) could never
sanction,
Mr. SOLLERS said:
I am extremely anxious to relieve my con-
science from the burden which rests upon it; and
when I have done that, I am willing to undertake
to carry out any measure for the reform of the
judiciary department of the State of Maryland,
that I think is compatible with my opinion of
what is right. I am anxious to be relieved from
all sorts of responsibility; I am anxious to wash
my hands clear of all this thing. I wish to God
it may not prove a terrible thing to some people,
and until that is done by a vote of my own, and
I care not who votes with me, I will vote in the
negative upon every subject touching the judicial
system.
I desire to offer an amendment which expresses
my opinions upon this subject, and then people.
may do as they choose. After that, whatever
system looking to reform—I beg pardon, I did
not mean to use that word—looking to a change
in the judiciary may be offered, I will endeavor,
so far as my vote is concerned, to perfect in the
best manner that my judgment will dictate. The
amendment which I offer is this, and I call the
yeas and nays on its adoption :
"That the judiciary system of this State, as
now established by the Constitution and Laws of |
