" by presentment of a grand jury and conviction
of a petit jury of the county in which he may re-
side."
Determined in the negative.
Mr. JACOBS moved to amend the 5th section by
striking out in the 3d and 4th lines, the words
"from among those learned in the law, having
been admitted to practice the law in this State. "
Mr. PHELPS demanded the yeas and nays, which
were ordered and taken.
Mr. DIRICKSON said, I do not wish to place any
unnecessary or useless restrictions within the body
of the Constitution. I believe that the same in-
telligence and integrity which qualifies the people
to elect their judges, renders them equally com-
petent to select a judge with the proper and re-
quisite legal information, without any such unne-
cessary and useless restriction as that which it is
now moved to strike out. Honestly and sincerely
entertaining such a confidence, I shall vote aye
upon the motion which has just been submitted
by the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Jacobs.)
[The amendment is stated above as it appears
on the Journal; but it not being as intended by
Mr. Jacobs, and as understood by many members,
this vote was reconsidered on the next day. See
proceedings of Thursday, April 24.]
The yeas and nays being taken, resulted—yeas
1, nays 67; as follows :
Affirmative—Mr. Dirickson—1.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, President pro tem
Morgan, Lee, Mitchell, Wells, Kent, Sellman,
Brent of Charles, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Ridgely, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shri-
ver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephen-
son, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, Slew-
art of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Davis
Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Holliday
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower and
Brown—67.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPENCER moved to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on the amendment offered by Mr.
Brown, and adopted by the Convention, inserting
after the word " be," in the 19th line, the words
" increase or."
Upon making this motion,
Mr. S. said that he was upposed in any particu-
lar to judges receiving perquisites or fees, and
their salaries bring diminished; he was opposed to
restricting the Legislature from raising them. If
it was the desire of the people that the salaries
should be enlarged, he would leave it in the power
of the Legislature to enlarge them.
Mr. BROWN. If we undertake to fix in the
Constitution the salary of a single officer, I hold
that the salary of that officer should be fixed
Here is a minimum stated. I have had experi-
ence enough with the old system to know that
there will be applications to the House of Dele-
gates to raise the salaries of the judges. If we
are not capable of judging of the duties to be per- |
formed in this Court, I should like to know how
the Legislature can judge of them. I want a
maximum to be fixed in the Constitution. If
$2,500 is not enough, and if a majority of the
Convention think $3,000 a proper amount, then
let it be fixed at $3,000, and there let it stand.
We do not know under bow much excitement the
Legislature may be placed at a future day. We
had better not attempt to fix it at all than to have
only a minimum. I hope, therefore, that the re-
consideration will not be agreed to.
Mr. SPENCER. If this be stricken out, it will
be left precisely as the old Constitution was,
providing that the Judges shall not have their
salaries diminished. We have put in another
requisition here which is in conformity with the
declaration of rights. That Bill of Rights de-
clared that it was improper for judges to receive
perquisites of office. That was an abuse which we
have eradicated. We cannot now pretend to say
with certainty what ought to be the remunera-
tion of the Judges. We think $2,500 ought to
be given. But we cannot tell how much the
duties of the Judges may be enlarged. There
is an immense commercial interest growing up
in this State, and particularly in Western Ma-
ryland. There is the town of Cumberland, for
example, growing rapidly; the business of the
city of Baltimore alone, now frequently detains
the Court of Appeals for two or three months,
while the whole business amounts to seven
months in the course of the year, it may be that
in a short time, the business, instead of being
transacted in seven months, will take up the
entire year. Why should we be forced to call
a Convention to provide for a case of that kind?
It is true that a Convention may be held at the
expiration of ten years; but I do not want to
force the calling of a Convention, merely be-
cause the salaries of the Judges have been per-
manently fixed so low as to prevent competent
men from occupying the bench. It seems to me
that if you fix it so that it shall not be dimin-
ished while in office, and give the people through
the legislature the right to give them more by
way of fixed salary, if it should be found ne-
cessary as a matter of justice, it will be the best
arrangement we can adopt. I think it is as-
suming too much, to suppose that we can de-
cide for all time to come, the proper remunera-
tion of a Judge of the Court of Appeals.
Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
—yeas 5, nays 63, as follows;
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, President pro
tem., Bowie, Spencer, Grason and Holliday
—5.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Lee, Mitchell,
Wells, Sellman, Sollers, Brent, of Charles,
Merrick, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, John
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Tuck,
Sprigg, Bowling, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster,
Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Bi-
ser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry
Nelson, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Hard-
castle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Balt. city, Sher- |
