Affirmative—Messrs. Lee, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Wells, Dalrymple, Bond, Welch, John
Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell,
McLane, Spencer, Wright, Dirickson, McMas-
ter, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, McHenry, Carter,
Kilgour, Brewer, Anderson and Smith—25.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Don-
aldson, Dorsey, Sellman, Brent, of Charles,
Howard, Buchanan, Lloyd, Dickinson, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Cham-
bers, of Cecil, Miller, Grason, Gaither, Biser,
Annan, Sappington, Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Balti-
more city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis,
Waters, Weber, Holliday, Slicer, Parke, Show-
er, Cockey and Brown—46.
So the Convention refused to grant the con-
sent for a motion to reconsider.
Mr. SCHLEY remarked that he had been the
first to call the attention of the Convention to
this subject, as would appear by reference to
page 93 of the journal. That in the early part
of the session he had been favorable to it, but
upon reflection, he had come to the conclusion
that nothing could be inserted in the constitution
so well calculated to embarrass and retard the
business of the people and of the courts. Under
the language of this proposition, if a bill in
equity was filed in Allegany county court, and
the testimony of a witness resident in another
county (for instance, Worcester) was wanted,
he would be compelled, by the process of the
court, to travel from Worcester to Allegany,
that his testimony might be delivered orally lo
the judge who would hear the cause. Under
the existing system the testimony of a witness,
resident in any part of the State or of the United
States was taken under a commission, and when
the judge went to any county in his judicial dis-
trict to hear equity causes, they were heard
upon bill answer and testimony thus taken.
But under this proposed system, the witnesses
would be required to be in attendance upon the
court, and the result would inevitably be great
and expensive delay, enhanced vastly by the
fact that this Convention had assigned but one
judge to two or more counties. Two reasons
had been given for the change. First, that it
would lessen the expense of equity proceedings.
Second, that the oral examination would give
the judge the opportunity of seeing the manner
of the witness, which was said some times to
possess more weight than the matter disclosed
by him. The first reason had no force, as the
expense would be increased, because the wit-
ness would receive not only a per diem, but
itinerant charge. These charges would be
greater or less, as the necessity of his attendance
upon the court from day to day was imperious
or otherwise. At present the expense of a
commission rarely exceeded four dollars, and
the witness was subjected to no inconvenience
by being compelled to be absent from his
home and business. While, on the other hand,
the business of the equity courts was facili-
tated by the judge being able to read the |
entire testimony in a tithe of the time that
would be consumed by oral examination. As
his duties would be enlarged, economy of time
was of the first importance, that his Judicial
functions might be promptly discharged. The
second reason also failed, because in the case of
an appeal the testimony must be read in writing
by the appellate court, and in that court the
manner of the witnesses was entirely lost, as all
would be alike upon paper. The time allowed
for discussion was so brief (five minutes) that
he could not do more than offer these suggestions
to the mind of the Convention. He hoped
the Convention would reconsider their vote of
yesterday, to defeat the proposition entirely, or
if they would not do that, he asked that they
would amend it so as to require that the oral
examination should be confined to witnesses
resident in the county where the cause was
heard. If that amendment was made, it would
mitigate the objections to the plan.
Mr. BUCHANAN moved to postpone the motion
indefinitely, and then he proceeded to discuss
the impolicy of holding afternoon sessions, when
he was interrupted by
Mr. GWINN, who raised this question of order:
that the policy of holding afternoon sessions
was not before the Convention—the question
being the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDENT ruled the motion to postpone
indefinitely to be in order. The Chair, how-
ever, thought the gentleman (Mr, Buchanan)
should confine his remarks to that question.
Mr. BUCHANAN hoped the gentleman from
Baltimore city would be required to reduce his
point of order to writing.
Mr. GWINN then sent to the Secretary's desk
the following, which was read:
"That the motion to postpone is not in order,
as being against the true meaning of the rule
established by this Convention,"
Mr. SPENCER. The Chair has already decided
the point of order, and there was no appeal.
Mr. GWINN. The Chair decided that it was
doubtful.
Mr. SPENCER. No, sir; the Chair decided
that it was in order.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I call both
gentlemen to order.
The PRESIDENT again decided the motion to
be in order.
Mr. GWINN then appealed from the decision
of the Chair.
The question was then propounded—
"Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Convention?"
The yeas and nays were then demanded, but
not ordered.
And the question being taken, it was de-
termined in the affirmative.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair suggests that a
rule should be formed on the subject, there
being none, as the Chair has been directed and
guided entirely by the lexparliamentaria. If the
Convention will adopt a rule, the Chair will take
pleasure in enforcing it.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said he had
voted for the proposition of the gentleman from. |
