this State, shall be and remain as it was before
the meeting of this Convention except so far as
an alteration in the judicial districts and increas-
ing the number thereof is concerned, power to
do which is hereby granted to the Legislature."
The PRESIDENT, Does the gentleman offer it
as a substitute ?
Mr. SOLLERS. I offer it as a substitute.
The PRESIDENT. There being other amend-
ments pending, the substitute is not now in
order.
Several gentlemen suggested that the substitute
be entertained by unanimous consent.
There being no objection, the substitute was
so entertained.
The yeas and nays were then ordered on
agreeing to the substitute,
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Chambers, of Kent, Wells,
Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, John Dennis, Cris-
field, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Sprigg, Hearn, Fooks and Jacobs—15.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't pro tem.,
Morgan, Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson, Randall,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Colston, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller,
Bowie, Tuck, Spencer, George, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson.
Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Slew-
art, 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—50,
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
Mr. SOLLERS gave notice that on to-morrow
he should move to amend the 5th section of the
report by sinking out the words, "from among
those learned in the law," and should also move
to amend said section by striking out that part of
it which limits the term of judges to ten years,
and insert "twelve months."
On motion, the Convention then adjourned.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
CALL OF THE CONVENTION.
Remarks of Mr. MERRICK—Friday, April 11th.
Mr. MERRICK said that the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, [Mr. Donaldson,] had referred
to the fact that this Convention set here without
any provision in the old Constitution; and had
remarked that that showed that any prohibitory
clause, or any clause restraining or regulating
the mode in which the Convention should be
hereafter called, would be repudiated by the
people. He (Mr. M.) thought not. The man-
ner in which this Convention was called, grew
oat of the peculiar circumstances of the case.
There being no provision in the old constitution
to authorise the call of a Convention, and a large
portion of the people excited to a strong desire
for the convocation of such an assembly, their
Legislature had from the necessity of the case,
strained very much the power that could be |
drawn from the constitution, and called somewhat
irregularly, he would admit, a Convention. But
he regarded the people of Maryland as a law-
abiding people, who would regard, with due re-
spect and deference, all the provisions of consti-
tutional law, and whatever clause they now
engrafted upon this Constitution, defining a
mode by which to call a Convention, there being
thus a form prescribed or specified, the people
would most assuredly conform to it, and it
would continue in operation as long as the Con-
stitution itself endured. He would exact that
the people should have the right, through the
Legislature, by the passage of an act of two
successive Legislatures, to call a Convention.
The people would then adopt that mode, and
none other, and had only called this Convention
by the extraordinary and irregular mode adopt-
ed, because of the seeming necessity of the case.
In reply to the remarks of the gentleman from
Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spencer,) as to the changes
the Legislature might make, he [Mr. M.] would
say that the Constitution could not be put beyond
the reach of the people. There must be some
mode left for its alteration or change. Whatever
mode there was, they could not make the provis-
ions of the Constitution divine and unalterable.
They must leave the government in the hands
of the people, to be changed by them as they
themselves, in their discretion might see proper,
due form and a just regard for each others rights
being always obscured—less than this would not
be republican.
THE JUDICIARY.
Remarks of Mr. DONALDSON, Saturday, April 19th.
Mr. DONALDSON said;
It may be necessary for me to say a few words
in explanation of the amendment which I have
offered, and of the manner in which I desire the
vote to be taken upon it. As at present proposed
it applies only to the judges of the Court of Ap-
peals but if it should be adopted now, a corres-
ponding amendment would, of course, be made
to that part of the bill which provides for county
or district judges. I have a great aversion—
and the word is not so strong as the feeling and
conviction which suggest it—to the election of
judges by the people, especially when they are
made re-eligible, as in the report from our judi-
ciary committee. The general opinion, which
appears to prevail here, in favor of such a plan,
comes more, I believe, from a strong sense of
the evils of the present system, than from any
special merit in the substitute proposed. I have
heard many say, both in and out of this Hall, that
the present mode of appointment is so bad that
we cannot change it for a worse. To this I can-
not agree; and yet, he must be blind, who does
not see, and wanting in candor, who does not ac-
knowledge, how very unsatisfactory are the re-
sults of our present system. These political par-
tisans are generally selected to fill the seats of
judges, and the high qualifications of ability, wis-
dom and extensive learning are too often regard-
ed as matters of secondary importance. Perhaps |
