quate to the prompt and faithful performance of
that duty. I am willing to give Baltimore an-
other judge at the present time. That being
refuse, I am desirous that provision be made so
that the Legislature may hereafter have power
to make such further provision as the necessities
of the people may call for, in that important
and commercial metropolis.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the amendment as amended.
Mr. HARBINE offered, as a substitute for said
amendment, the following:
"And the Legislature shall, whenever it may
think the same proper and expedient, provide
by law another court for the city of Baltimore,
to consist of one judge, to be elected by the
qualified voters of said city, who shall be sub-
ject to the same constitutional provisions; hold
his office for the same term of years, and re-
ceive the same compensation as the judge of
the court of common pleas of Baltimore city,
and said court shall have such jurisdiction and
powers as may be prescribed by law."
Mr. HARBINE remarked that this proposition
was in substance the same with that of Mr.
Howard, only somewhat enlarged. The future
of Baltimore city could not be judged of by the
future of the counties. Many of the judicial
districts were in statu quo, or even going back
in point of numbers and law business, while
Baltimore city was progressing rapidly. With-
in the last ten years its population had increased
some 60 or 70,000. The game principles which
now apply to that city would not apply ten
years hence While the western counties might
increase five or ten per cent., Baltimore city
would increase fifty or one hundred per cent.
It was due to the people of that city that some
provision should be made for the future. He
was one of those who hoped that the new Con-
stitution would last a century; and twenty years
could not pass by before there would be an absolute
necessity of a further provision for Bal-
timore city.
Mr. BRENT. I do acknowledge here, sir, that
we of Baltimore city owe a debt of gratitude to
those gentlemen—among whom I am proud to
class the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Harbine) and the gentleman from Somerset,
(Mr. Crisfield,) and others—who have spoken
in terms of liberality towards the city of Balti-
more. I shall vote for an amendment of this
kind, and shall then vote against the entire sec-
tion. The great object of the people of Balti-
more is a thorough judicial reform, which will
enable us to get rid of our accumulated docket
and to dispatch all future business with rapidi-
ty. Our courts of justice are clogged up with
the accumulation of years. Two judges cannot
rid us of that evil. Nor have I any faith that
the Legislature will give us an additional judge,
excepting accompanied with conditions which
may be wholly unacceptable to the people.—
They may say that if we want another judge,
he must be paid out of the city, and not out of
the State treasury.
Mr. DASHIELL inquired whether an amendment
would be in order. |
The PRESIDENT replied in the negative.
Mr. BRENT. Upon consultation with my col-
leagues, finding the whole delegation are to vote
against the amendments, in order that we may
be unanimous, I shall vote even against the
amendment.
Mr. HOWARD. The whole delegation going
against the amendment? I will withdraw it, sir.
They may take care of themselves.
Mr. HARBINE then offered his amendment, to
come in at the end of the 12th section of said
report.
Mr. DASHIELL moved to amedn the amend-
ment, by adding at the end thereof theh follow-
ing:
"And that the Legislature shall have the pow-
er, when deemed expedient, to appoint an addi-
tional judge in each or any of the respective
circuits created in the provisions of this consti-
tution."
Mr. DASHIELL moved that the question be
taken by yeas and nays, which being ordered,
appeared as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Dent,
Hopewell .Chambers, of Kent, Donaldson, Bond,
Brent, of Charles, James U. Dennis, Dashiell,
Goldsborough, McCubbin, Bowling, Thawley,
John Newcomer, Slicer and Smith—17.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Lee,
Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sellman, Weems, How-
ard, Buchanan, Bell, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Colston, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Chambers, of Cecil,
Miller, McLane, Sprigg, Spencer, Wright, Di-
rickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Ste-
phenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city. Ware,
Schley, Fiery, Harbine, Michael Newcomer,.
Davis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson,
Holliday, Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown
—60.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. Harbine.
Mr. THOMAS moved to amend the amendment
by inserting after the words " Baltimore city,"
the words "to bepaid out of the State treasury."
Mr. HARBINE said that he had taken it for
granted that it would be paid out of the State
treasury, as in all the other cases,
Mr. THOMAS said that the objection of the
Baltimore delegation was that they could not
trust the legislature. He wished this objection
to be removed as far as possible. The other
courts were provided for in the Constitution, and
would be paid for as the Constitution provided.
This court, if established by the legislature,
would he paid for as the legislature should pro-
vide, and it was possible that they might re-
quire it to be paid out of the city treasury.
Mr. HARBINE accepted the amendment.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the amendment as modified,
Mr. HARBINE moved that the question be taken
byyeas and nays; which being ordered, resulted
as follows: |
