by law for publishing reports of cases argued and
determined in the said court."
Determined in the affirmative,
Mr. SCHLEY, moved further to amend the
amendment by adding at the end thereof the following:
" And at the city of Frederick, for the hearing
of appeals from the counties of Allegany, Wash-
ington, Frederick, Carroll, and Montgomery, on
the first Monday of May and September, in each
and every year."
Mr. SCHLEY. My object in offering that
amendment is palpable upon the face of it. It is
to promote the convenience of suitors and law-
yers in the counties embraced in the amendment
It does not interfere at all with the arrangement of
the business in other parts of the State. We
only ask that we of the Western part of the State,
may not be compelled to go to Annapolis to at-
tend the Court of Appeals; but that the Court of
Appeals shall come to the city of Frederick. The
only plausible objection would be the want of a
library, and I venture to any that the libraries in
the city of Frederick are vastly superior to the li-
brary here in the State House.
Mr. BRENT, I move to postpone for the pur-
pose of making a few remarks. I am opposes
to this proposition. I believe it is merely for
the convenience of lawyers, and that the suitors
have nothing to do with it. The suitors never
have any thing to do with the Court of Appeals;
and there is no sort of reason for the attendance
of the clients, unless to hear the argument.
Again, sir, we shall be called upon fora Court
of Appeals somewhere on the Eastern Shore,
and another perhaps for the Potomac counties.
They may have very good libraries in Frederick,
but they are not public libraries; and the
Judges would necessarily be indebted to the bar
for every book which they should have occasion
to examine; and some of the counties have scarce-
ly any private libraries of value. Then, sir, what
is to become of the records of these courts? Are
they to be scattered in fragments all over the
State of Maryland? Why not have them con-
centrated here, where every one can have ac-
cess to them? Whatever arguments there might
be in favor of such a proposition in the large
States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, or New York,
I hold that the arguments do not apply to Mary-
land. This is a small State, with ample facili-
ties of communication. The court also have
occasion frequently to refer to the minutiae of a
ease, not to be found in the printed report, to
learn the precise facts on which a case in point
was decided. I see no reason, then, why, in
order to accommodate lawyers, we should have
an itinerant Court of Appeals. Rather have
but one court and one clerk, and then you will
always know where to search for titles which
have passed through your highest court.
Mr. DAVIS moved to strike out the word
"Montgomery,"
The PRESIDENT ruled the amendment not to
be in order.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER demanded the yeas and
72 |
nays; which were ordered, and, being taken,
resulted—ayes 30, noes 49—as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Hicks, George, Thomas,
Gaither, Biser, Sappington, Thawley, Schley,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Kilgour, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Parke, Shower and Cockey—20.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, (President,)
Morgan, Blakiston, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud,
Lee, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sell-
man, Jenifer, Buchanan, Lloyd, Dickinson, Jas.
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hod-
son, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Miller, Bowie,
Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Spencer, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Johnson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn,.
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware, Davis,
Brewer, Waters, Anderson and Brown—48.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to amend said substitute
by adding at the end thereof the following:
"And at such other times and places as the
Legislature may by law direct."
Mr. J. said; I am opposed and vote against
having a migratory court of appeals in all the
counties. There may be occasions, though, in the
future, when in some central point in the various
districts, it may or may not be necessary that the
court of appeals should be held. I, therefore,
would not close up future contingencies that may
arise, and I think that the Legislature of Mary-
land is a very safe depository to repose that con-
fidence in. Their judgment, their wisdom in the
future can judge of the times and circumstances
that it may or may not be necessary to hold &
court, say once on the Eastern shore, once here,
and once in Western Maryland. Therefore, I am.
willing to leave that under the entire discrimination
of the Legislature. It may or it may not be
wanted. I am unwilling that this Convention,
should settle that, for certainly there is not a legislature
that will meet here but what will have
every thing around them necessary to guide them.
in this matter. Hence it is I made that motion,.
leaving it to the discrimination of the Legislature
to judge of the future; as the future may occur
to judge of circumstances as they may arise, and
of emergencies as they may think it necessary to
meet them.
Mr. SCHLEY asked the yeas and nays on agrees
ing to the amendment, which were ordered, and.
being taken, were as follows:
Affirmative. — Messrs. Buchanan, Spencer,.
George, Thomas, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Sap-
pington, Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, .
Michael Newcomer, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parker, and Shower—24.
Negative — Messrs. Chapman, (President,)
Morgan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud
Lee, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sell-
man, Jenifer, Lloyd, Dickinson, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson. Goldsborough, Eccleston, Miller, Bowie,
Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Wright, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, McHenry, |
