they would find it indispensable to go home.
And thus would the Convention be left without
a quorum. He hoped they would now go to
work in earnest, and try to make a Constitution
which, when submitted to the people, would be
accepted by them.
The question being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative.-Messrs. Blackistone, Dent, Sell-
man, Brent, of Charles, Bell, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Colston, Hicks, Chambers, of Cecil, McLane,
McMaster, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn, Stewart,
of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Davis, Brewer, Weber, Hol-
liday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Cockey and
Brown-36.
Negative.-Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Don-
aldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Weems, Dal-
rymple, Bond, Howard, Buchanan, Ridgely,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Miller, Spen-
cer, Wright, Hearn, Dirickson, Fooks, Jacobs,
Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Brent,
of Baltimore city, Schley, Neill, Anderson and
Smith-39.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HICKS then withdrew his substitute.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the order as offered by Mr. Michael New-
comer.
Mr. THAWLEY moved to amend the order by
striking out "two" and inserting in lieu thereof
"half-past one," and by striking out "four" and
inserting "three."
Determined in the negative.
Mr. THAWLEY moved the question, be taken
by yeas and nays;
Which motion was not sustained.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the adoption of the order; and
Determined in the negative.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, gave notice that on
to-morrow he should move to take up for consideration
the motion made by him on the 7th
of March, to the report of the Legislative com-
mittee, being a motion to reconsider the vote of
the Convention in relation to the oath to be ad-
ministered to officers and witnesses.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, said he yesterday
informed the House he should this morning call
up the motion to reconsider the representation
question. During the recess he had been re-
quested to defer it on account of the absence,
to-day, of a number of gentlemen who were
anxious to participate in the action of the Con-
vention on that subject, and in deference to
their wishes he had consented to postpone it till
Thursday—to-morrow. While on the floor he
would express the objects he proposed, that
every member might be prepared to act.
He had no concealment to practice on this or
any other occasion, and desired now, as he always
had endeavored to do, to pursue a fair, open
and candid course, it was his purpose first to
obtain a reduction in the number of delegates
allowed by the bill as it now stands to the city |
of Baltimore; to reduce that number to the
amount allowed to the largest county. Then to
obtain an additional member for each of the
counties of Montgomery and Charles, which he
thought it could be shown did not receive at
present proportionate justice, and, failing in the
attempt thus to reduce the delegation from Bal-
timore, he should endeavor to district the city
and require one delegate to be elected in each
of such districts.
Mr. HOWARD gave notice that on to-morrow
he should move to amend the 22d rule, but add-
ing the following:
"But no motion shall be in order to reconsider
an article or section which has gone to the Revi-
sory committee."
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
The Convention then resumed the consideration
of the order of the day, being the report No.
13, submitted by Mr. Bowie, as chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The question pending before the Convention
on yesterday, being on the motion of Mr. Brown
to reconsider the vote of the Convention on the
amendment offered by Mr. Morgan to the 13th
section of the report, and adopted by the Conven-
tion, striking out the first paragraph of the sec-
tion.
Mr. BLAKISTONE said it would be remembered
that the contest before the Convention at this
time was about the number of judges Baltimore
city was lo be entitled to in the court. He un-
derstood a system had been adopted by which the
State was to be laid off into judicial districts.
That district from which he came was composed
of St. Mary's, Charles and Prince George's coun-
ties. And he believed that was the rule which
had been adopted, making three counties a dis-
trict, with the exception of the two counties of
Frederick and Carroll, and Washington and Al-
legany, being districts of two counties each, and
Calvert, Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Howard
counties, the four making a district, and perhaps
the same number in a district on the Eastern Shore.
The gentleman, (Mr, Gwinn,) in order to make ,
an impression, and show the necessity that did ex-
ist for the number of five separate courts in the
city of Baltimore, produced statistics in order to
prove the vast disproportion in the number of cases
brought in the Baltimore city court over those
cases brought in the different district courts of
the State, as at present organized. He read, for
that purpose, from a table of statistics prepared
by the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield,)
which gave an average of 1336 cases as the num-
ber of original suits brought in the Baltimore
city court for the years 1845, '6, '7, '8, '9 and '50,
and of course he was responsible only for what
he read. It would be found that the average
number of original suits was 1336, in the years
1845, '6, '7, and 1848, '9, and '50, and be
believed they had four judges in Baltimore
city. That was the average number brought in
that district. When the honorable gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr. Gwinn,) said that the
district from which he, (Mr. B.,) came, was the |
