Mr. SPENCER then withdrew the last branch
of his amendment,
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, then offered as
a substitute for the ninth section of the report of
the committee and amendment offered by Mr
Crisfield, the following:
" There shall be a division of the State into
seven judicial districts, in manner and form following,
to wit:—St. Mary's, Charles, Prince
George's shall be the first district, Anne Arun-
del, Calvert, Montgomery and Howard shall be
the second district; Allegany, Washington and
Frederick shall be the third: Carroll, Baltimore
county and Harford shall be the fourth; Baltimore
city shall be the fifth; Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's
and Talbot shall be the sixth, Caroline, Dorches-
ter, Somerset and Worcester shall be the seventh,
and there shall be elected as hereinafter directed,
one person having the qualifications hereinafter
prescribed, for each of the said judicial districts;
the said judges shall be styled superior judges,
and shall respectively hold a term of their courts
at least twice in each year, or oftener if required
by law, in each county composing their respec-
tive districts; and the said courts shall be called
superior courts for counties in which it may be
held, and shall have, hold and exercise, in the
several counties of this State, all and every the
powers, authorities and jurisdictions which the
county courts of this State now have, hold and
exercise, or which shall hereafter be prescribed
by laws made pursuant to this constitution; and
the said judges in their respective districts, shall
have, use and exercise all the powers, authorities
and jurisdiction which the Chancellor of Mary-
land, as a judge in equity, now has, uses and ex-
ercises; and the salary of said judge shall be two
thousand dollars annually, which shall not be diminished
during his continuance in office."
Which was read.
Mr. BOWIE moved for a division of the ques-
tion on the substitute, down to the word "sev-
enth," inclusive, in the 9th line.
Mr BRENT, of Baltimore city, demanded the
yeas and nays, which being ordered and taken,
resulted as follows;
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Mit-
chell, Weems, Brent, of Charles, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, Eccleston,
Phelps, Tuck, Spencer, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Johnson, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Nelson, Thaw-
ley, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of
Balt. city, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Brewer, Parke, Shower and
Brown—36.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Ricaud,
Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Donaldson, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Dalrymple, Sollers, Merrick,
Howard, Buchanan, Ridgely, John Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsbo-
rough, McCullough, Miller, McLane, Bowie,
Sprigg, Grason, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Stewart, of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Schley, Harbine, Davis,
Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Holliday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith and Ege—47. |
So the first branch of the substitute was rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, then withdrew
the second branch of his substitute.
The question again recurred upon the amendment
as offered by Mr, Crisfield, to the 9th sec-
tion of the report.
Mr. SHRIVER moved to amend said amend-
ment, by striking out, after the words "salary
of," the words "twenty-five hundred," and in-
serting in lieu thereof "two thousand."
Which amendment Mr. Crisfield accepted.
The question again recurred upon the adop-
tion of the amendment as amended.
Mr. BOWIE moved for a division of the ques-
tion upon the amendment, down to the word
"district," inclusive.
Mr. SHRIVER demanded the yeas and nays,
which being ordered and taken, resulted as
follows;
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple,
Sullen, Brent, of Charles, Sherwood, of
Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Crisfield, Dash-
iell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston,
Phelps, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin. Spencer, Gra-
son, George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, John-
son, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Stephenson. Mc-
Henry, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Ware,
Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Davis, Brewer, Waters, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith and
Brown—61,
Negative—Messrs. Wells, Randall, Sellman,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Mil-
ler, McLane, Bowie, Sappington, Nelson, Stew-
art, of Caroline, Sherwood, of Balt. city, Kil-
gour, Anderson, Parke, Ege and Shower— 21,
So the first branch of the amendment was
adopted.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the second branch of the amendment.
On motion of Mr. SCHLEY,
The second branch of the amendment was
amended by striking out, in the twelfth line,
these words "having the qualification herein-
after prescribed," and inserting in lieu thereof
the following:—"from among those learned in
the law, having been admitted to practice the
law in this State, and who shall have been a
citizen of 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,"
and by striking out, in thirty-eighth line, after
the word "knowledge," the word "and," and
inserting the words "shall be."
Mr. JOHNSON moved further to amend the
amendment by striking out in the fifteenth line
the word "twice," and inserting in lieu thereof
"thrice "
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON observed that he did no
know how it was in regard to the management
of judicial affairs in the smaller counties of the
State, but he knew that in his county there was
much procrastination and delay, and that it no |
