"two thousand," and inserting in lieu thereof
the words "fifteen hundred."
Mr. McM. said: We have decided by a very
decisive vote, that the district judges shall not
discharge the duties of the judges of the or-
phans' courts and chancery courts. That being
the case, I have moved my amendment to de-
crease the salary proposed to be given to the
judges from two thousand dollars to fifteen hun-
dred dollars. The associate judges at present
receive fourteen hundred dollars per annum,
but according to the classification, as proposed
by the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr,
Spencer,) their duties will not be increased in
our judicial department. Their duties will be
made less, in fact, one county being deducted.
If these associate judges discharge their duties
for fourteen hundred dollars per annum, I think
that the judges, as proposed by the gentleman
from Queen Anne's, can discharge the entire
duties for fifteen hundred dollars. I call for the
yeas and nays on my amendment,
Mr. SPENCER. I suggest to the gentleman
that the Convention consent to pass over in-
formally that part of the section relating to the
compensation of the judges.
Mr. MCMASTER declined to accept the sug-
gestion,
Mr. SPENCER. Then I move to pass over the
subject informally.
The motion was determined in the negative.
The yeas and nays were then ordered on the
amendment of Mr. McMaster, and being taken
resulted as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Lee, Mitchell, Sellman,
Bell, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis, Da-
hiell, Spencer, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
ooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser,
nnan, Thawley, Hardcastle, Schley, Fiery,
ohn Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer,
nderson, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
arke, Ege, Shower and Brown—35.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
an, Hopewell, Ricaud, Donaldson, Wells, Ran-
all, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, Brent,
f Charles, Jenifer, Howard, Buchanan, Welch,
handler, Ridgely, Colston, Hicks, Hodson,
olsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, McCullough,
iller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Grason,
eorge, Wright, Johnson, Sappington, Ste-
enson, McHenry, Nelson, Gwinn, Stewart,
Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters and
olliday—15.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MILLER moved to amend the section by
iking out "ten years," and inserting "six
ars," so as to make the terms of the judges
years instead of ten years.
Mr. SHRIVER asked the yeas and nays on
reeing to the amendment, which were or-
ed.
Mr. BOWIE asked a division of the question on
motion to strike out.
The question was accordingly stated to be on
eeing to the motion to strike out.
Mr. THOMAS asked the yeas and nays, which
re ordered, and being taken) were as follows: |
Affirmative—Messrs. Miller, McLane, Dirickson,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser,
McLane, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Brent, of Balti-
more city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer,.
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Ege, Shower, and Brown—36.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple,
Sollers,, Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, John
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, McCullough,
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson, Thawley,
Schley, Fiery, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, Holli-
day, and Smith—56.
So the Convention refused to strike out,
The question recurred upon agreeing to the
substitute offered by Mr. Spencer, on which the
yeas and nays had been ordered.
Mr. RIDGELY asked a division of the question,
go that the question might be first taken on that
part of the substitute making a classification of
districts, and afterwards in that part of the sub-
stitute in relation to the equity jurisdiction, and
the movable character of the courts.
Mr, CRISFIELD desired to know whether this
proposition could be divided, it was offered as
a substitute, and must they not take the question
on it as an entire section? Suppose that part of
the substitute offered should be rejected, then
they would have the other part as a substitute for
the whole proposition he had offered. He was
not very familiar with the rules, but they were now
called upon to vote for half a proposition as a
substitute for an entire one. If they should adopt
this half, then they could be called upon to vote for
the other half. it seemed to him that the motion
should be to amend and not to divide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER decided that the
question was divisible.
The question being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Colston, Spencer,
George, Wright, Johnson, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Holliday, Parke and Ege
—17.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Sellman, Dalrymple, Sollers,
Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Sherwood,
of Talbot, John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg, Grason, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser,
Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Nel-
son, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of
Balt. city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour,
Brewer, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Slicer, Fitz-
patrick, Smith, Shower and Brown—62.
So the first branch of the substitute was rejected.
|
