Mr. BOWIE moved for a division of the ques-
tion upon sinking out.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER demanded the yeas and
nays, winch, being ordered and taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Buchanan, Bell, Welch.
Chandler, Sherwood, of Talbot, Chambers of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Dirick-
son, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson,
Gwinn, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of Balt.
city, Ware, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown—37.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitch-
ell, Donaldson, Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman,
Weems, Dalrymple, Merrick, Ridgely, John
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hodson, Eccleston,
Phelps, Bowie, McCubbin. Grason, George,
Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, An-
nan, Thawley, Schley, Fiery, Neill, Davis, Kil-
gour, Waters, Holliday and Smiths—41.
So the convention refused to strike out,
Mr. BUCHANAN moved to amend the first branch
of the amendment offered by Mr. Crisfield to
the 9th section of the Report, by inserting; after
the words "Baltimore county" the words "and
Harford."
The PRESIDENT decided the motion not to be
in order. The gentleman could get at his object
by a motion to reconsider the vote which
had just been taken.
Mr. BUCHANAN then moved to reconsider the
vote of the convention on the first branch of the
amendment offered by Mr. Crisfield, to the 9th
section of the report, and adopted on yesterday.
He said his impression was that that district was
disproportionate to the amount of business done
in it. He wanted the two counties he had
named put together. There would be business
enough, from the county of Baltimore alone, to
occupy the court four or five months in a year.
What were the facts? The court was now in
session, and had been for a month. He had the
honor to practice in that court. He was en-
gaged on one side or the other of most of the
suits, and every one of those cases had been
postponed or continued, in consequence of his
absence. Of course none of them bad been
tried. The court was at present engaged in
criminal business, and he was sure that if Cecil
county was added to the proposed district, the
judge would be worked to death. God pity a
judge with this amount of labor to perform.
Mr. B. said his object was not to disconnect
ourselves from Cecil county, in kindly feeling and
sentiments, but only in respect to this matter of
judicial arrangement, which was unjust to Cecil,
as well as to us. If there was any county he
would like to be associated with more, perhaps
than any other on the Eastern Shore, it was the
county of Cecil. But he was satisfied the district
was too large, and he therefore protested
against the arrangement.
Mr. CRISFIELD asked if the gentleman (Mr.
Buchanan) would withdraw his motion to re-
consider? If he would consent, he (Mr. C.) |
would renew the motion with pleasure, after
closing the few words he had to say.
Mr, BUCHANAN. I will withdraw if the gen-
tleman win renew the motion to reconsider.
Mr. CRISFIELD proceeded. The gentleman
had moved to reconsider, because, in his judg-
ment, a district composed of Harford, Balti-
more and Cecil would be too large. He held
in his hand some statistics, as far as he had
been able to collect them, and he would read
for information. He would refer the Conven-
tion to them with a view to show what time
was required to discharge this service.
In Harford county, in the five years from 1845
to 1849, both inclusive, the court sat an average
of twenty-three days per annum. We have no
returns of the amount of business in that court;
none have been made; but from the number of
days required to transact it, a fair estimate can
be formed of the amount of business. In Cecil
the average number of days which the court
sat per annum in the same years was nineteen;
in the same time the average number of civil
suits commenced was 156; number of jury trials,
civil and criminal, 20; criminal cases, including
those tried by jury, 31; insolvent petitions, 22.
In 1846 there were five bills in Chancery filed
in that court, and none since.
In Baltimore county we had no means of de-
termining how many days were required to dis-
charge the business, for the returns did not dis-
tinguish when the court sat for city and when
for county business. But the returns did show
the amount of county business. In five years,
from 1845 to 1849, both inclusive, the average
number of suits was 200 per annum; and the
number of jury trials, civil and criminal, had
averaged 25 per annum. As he had said before,
there was no means of ascertaining the number
of days occupied by Baltimore County Court.
But he found that Baltimore County Court had
not much more business, according to the re-
turns, than Queen Anne's, The average num-
ber of suits in Queen Anne's was 190 per an-
num for the five years referred to; and the aver-
age number of civil and criminal cases tried
before a jury was 20 per annum in five years,
and in that county the court sat an average of
31 days; and he did not think, judging from the
comparative amount of business, a much longer
time would be required for Baltimore County.
Mr. SPENCER. Tell me the average number
of suits in Somerset county, and the average
number of trials.
Mr. CRISFIELD said he could not, for no re-
turns had been made; the average number of
days, however, which the court sits in Somer-
set county is twenty. It would be found from
the statistics referred to, that there would be
ample time to do all the work required to be
done in ajudicial district composed of Harford,
Baltimore and Cecil counties. He thought the
statistics were against his friend from Baltimore
county, (Mr, Buchanan,) and if he would be
pleased with an association with those counties,
he did not see why his friend should be deprived
of that pleasure for want of time to transact the
business. |
