Some mistake having occurred in relation to
the extent of the amount proposed yesterday
by Mr. Jacobs, to the fifth section of the report
of the committee on the judiciary,
Some comment followed on the part of
Messrs. Dirickson, Jacobs, Spencer, Sellman
and other gentlemen, when
Mr. JACOBS moved to re-consider the vote of
the Convention on the amendment offered by
him on yesterday to the 5th section of the re-
port of the committee on the judiciary, and to
be found on page 629 of the Journal.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. JACOBS then moved to amend said 5th
section by striking out in the 3d and 4th lines,
these words, "from among those learned in the
law, having been admitted to practice the law
in this State, at least five years, and above the
age of thirty years at the time of his election,
and a resident of the judicial district."
Mr. MCMASTER moved the question be taken
by yeas and nays, and being ordered, appeared
as follows:
Affirmative—None.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Wells, Kent, Ran-
dall, Sellman, Weems, Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston,
John Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Phelps, McCullough, Mil-
ler, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg. Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephen-
son, Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt.
city, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Parke, Ege, Shower and Brown—75,
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr, SHRIVER presented two petitions of sun-
dry citizens of the State in relation to the li-
cense system, which was read, and severally
referred to the select committee appointed on
that subject,
On motion of Mr. BISER the Convention took
up for consideration, the motion made by him
on the 18th inst., to reconsider the vote of the
Convention upon the proviso submitted by Mr.
Brent, of Balt, city, to the 43d section of the
report of the committee on the Legislative De-
partment.
Mr. DONALDSON called the attention of the
Convention to the fact that the general debate on
the judiciary system was to terminate this day
attwelve o'clock, after which time, explana-
tions of ten minutes duration only would be in
order. There were but two hours left for de-
bate. Probably it was scarcely proper that
another proposition should be introduced just at
this time. The Convention, he thought, should
make the most of the time that remained.
There were some further important amend-
ments which gentlemen desired to explain.
Mr. BISER desired, he said, to throw no ob- |
stacles in the way of the consideration and dis-
cussion of the judiciary question. He would
not, therefore, press the motion to re-consider
at this time; but would move that its further
consideration be postponed until Tuesday next.
Ordered accordingly.
THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the order of the day, being the report
heretofore submitted by Mr. Bowie, Chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The pending question was on the amendment
offered by Mr. Crisfield to the 9th section of the
report.
Mr. SPENCER. My object to-day is, in as brief
a manner as I can, to compare the expenses of the
judiciary system in Maryland with those of Pennsylvania,
having already compared them with
New York, two of the Northern States, and of
Kentucky and Ohio, two of the Western States,
in order to show what has been the character of
the judiciary in those respective States, and what
duties they had to perform. My object is further
to show that what is recommended by the substi-
tute I have had the honor to propose, and what
has been recommended by the substitute of the
gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Crisfield) requires
from the judges of the State the performance of
no greater amount of labor than is performed by
the judges in other States. 1 will then ask if
this Convention is willing to say that Maryland is
entirely behind the age, and incapable, for want
of legal knowledge and talent, of performing the
same labor and service, with the same effect and
the same results as in those other States.
First, let me refer to the Slate of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has thirty-six judges, at a cost of
$75,311 61, including an estimate of $2,745 for
traveling expenses, allowed by law to judges of
the Supreme Court. And here let me remark
that I am told that this estimate for traveling ex-
penses is by far too large. In that State the
judges perform all the duties which are performed
in this State by Orphans' Court judges, common
law judges and chancellors; and yet they have
but thirty-six judges, whilst the bill under con-
sideration proposes thirty for this State, at the
expense of $62,500. (See American Almanac,
pages 240—241.)
In Pennsylvania, by the census of 1840, (page
36) the population was 1,724,033. Her capital,
in manufactures and the foreign and retail trade,
was $70,719,686. (See pp. 153, 145, census of
1840.)
Her agricultural produce in wheat, barley,
oats, rye, buckwheat and Indian corn, was 55,-
132,246 bushels. (See p. 258 census of 1840.)
And now let me ask if, with a population on
our part at the same time of only 470,019, and
with wealth in the same items of trade of $20,-
110,454, and with an agricultural produce in the
same articles, of 15,913,857 bushels, it can he ex-
pected that whilst Pennsylvania has only thirty-
six judges, at a cost of $15,311 67, Maryland is
to have fixed upon her thirty judges, at a cost of
$62,500; (See census of 1840, pp. 153, 358,
3600) |
