brought to hear, to try to rescue those two poor
miserable men incarcerated in a jail in Penn-
sylvania for committing no crime. They had
put themselves in that dilemma trying to exe-
cute our laws, and we should do all we could to
obtain their liberation.. They were, probably,
friendless; and if we came in to their aid, the
sooner we did so the better. The case was this;
A colored woman fled from Cecil county into
Pennsylvania, and had a child there. She was
seized and the child also, and brought back; and
after the seizure of that child the owner was
indicted, and two agents living in Philadelphia
were also indicted for kidnapping. They were
convicted and sentenced, and are now in the
Penitentiary, There they lay, and were forgot-
ten, except by the people of Maryland, who,
he hoped, would not forget them.
The attorney general was right in the opin-
ion he had given, and in which opinion he (Mr.
H.) concurred entirely. His opinion was, that
those men committed no crime according to the
laws of Pennsylvania; that, under the Constitu-
tion of the United States, the fugitive was in a
state of disability all the time of her absence;
that the claim of her master remained pending
over her to the same extent as when she was in
Maryland, Now, if that was so—and it was a
point only to be declared by the Supreme Court
of the United States—then those men commit-
ted no crime against the laws of Pennsylvania,
because they had a right to do what they did
under the Constitution of the United States,—
It was on this point he concurred with the com-
mittee, that the question should be brought up
as expeditiously as possible to the only tribunal
that could try it. There would be a difficulty
in bringing it before it, because the indictment
did not certify the nature of the crime, and the
supreme court had always decided that where
an exception was taken, the record must show
that a constitutional point was raised and deci-
ded in the court below; and this record did not.
But he hoped and thought the court would, in
such a case as this, receive evidence beyond the
record, because It would be perfectly manifest
to every body, that if they choose in the free
states to make their indictments general, there
would be no way of getting it on the record.—
He preferred that immediate action should be
had by this body, because if we requested the
Governor to take the necessary steps in the
matter, he would do it. And he (Mr. H.) thought
that every citizen should use every means in his
power to extricate those poor wretches from
unmerited suffering,
The question was then taken on the resolu-
tions as read a second time, and they were
adopted.
REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the order of the day, being the report
submitted by Mr. Bowie, chairman of the com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to amend the 5th sec-
tion of the report, by striking out from the word |
"who" to the word "or," in the 11th line, an
inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
"And immediately after the judges of the
Court of Appeals shall have convened after
their first election under this Constitution, the
judges shall be divided by lot into four classes;
the seat of the judge of the first class shall be
vacated at the expiration of the second year;
the seat of the judge of the second class shall
be vacated at the expiration of the fourth year;
the seat of the judge of the third class shall be
vacated at the expiration of the sixth year; and
the seat of the judge of the fourth class shall
be vacated at the end of the eighth year; so that
one-fourth thereof, shall be elected on the first
Wednesday in November, every second year;
and an election shall be held for a judge in each
of the judicial districts, as vacancies may occur
in consequence of this classification, who shall
hold hia office for the term of eight years from
the time of his election,"
The question being taken, it was determined
in the negative.
Mr. BISER moved to amend the 5th section,
by striking out in the 19th line, the words "five
hundred."
Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved to amend
the section by striking out the words "two
thousand five hundred," and inserting in lieu
thereof "three thousand."
The question pending was on the motion of
Mr. Biser, to strike out "500."
Mr. BOWIE hoped that the committee would
allow the report to stand as it was. He was op-
posed to allowing the sum of $3,000, not because
he thought the sum too high for services of this
character, but looking to it as a practical ques-
tion, and taking into consideration the fact that
ever since the establishment of the Court of Ap-
peals, the judges had been content with a less
sum, ($2,500,) and had more labor to perform
than the judges of the present Court of Appeals
would have under the new system, because they
were obliged to ride the circuit. He therefore
hoped that the Convention would adhere to the
report of the committee.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore, observed that his
friend from Prince George's, (Mr, Bowie,) had
said the judges of the Court of Appeals had
acted for this or a less salary from the founda-
tion of the government. But what was the effect ?
Those judges had been obliged to look more to
farming than to their salaries to maintain them-
selves and families in a respectable manner, and
as became their condition in society. Now he,
(Mr. B.,) was for securing the highest order of
talent, and giving the judges liberal salaries, so
that they would not be reduced to the necessity
of devoting so much of their time to their private
duties, in order to maintain their families.
Again: in proportion as you had reduced the
number of the judges of the Court of Ap-
peals—which was to four—you gave them more
labor than six formerly had. The labor being
divided among six, of course could not be as
onerous as among four. The gentleman said
you relieved them of a portion of their labor by
taking them off their circuit. Now he, (Mr. B.,) |
