in Baltimore city wards. They did not re-
ceive fees according to the amount of justice
rendered, but all of the fees received by them
were paid into one common stock, and when it
had accumulated to a handsomesum, it was divided
among them. That system was found to work
well, because its tendency was to promote justice
and purity, and make it not if the interest of officers
to bring about litigation, in order to fill their
own pockets. Now, what was the objection to
the collection of fees by wards, or districts?
There were many wards in Baltimore city, where
there were no Justices of the Peace at all, nor
were their services required. Better leave the
whole regulation of this matter to the Legisla-
ture.
Mr. BOWIE moved to strike out the 21st section
of the report, and substitute in lieu of it the fol-
lowing:
"Justices of the peace and constables for this
State for the several counties and the city of Bal-
timore, shall be elected by the qualified voters of
the county or city, lor which the election may be
held, and shall hold their offices for the term of
two years, and until their successor shall have
been elected and shall have qualified, and the
General Assembly shall by law, prescribe the
number of justices of the peace and constables,
for each county and city, their duties and emolu-
ments, the lime, place and manner of holding
elections, the mode of making returns thereof,
rules for determining contested elections, for certifying
the election and qualification of the person
elected, and for filling all vacancies which may
occur, but no person shall be a justice of the
peace and constable, for any county or city, who
shall not be entitled to vote therein at the time
of the election."
Which was read.
Mr. SHRIVER liked the proposition of the gen-
tleman from Prince George's (Mr. Bowie,) much
better than the section reported by the committee,
He thought "constables" ought however, to be
included, and that the details should be left to
be carried out by the Legislature. He was dis-
posed to elect all public officers by the people—
no matter what they were.
Mr. SPENCER said he declined to accept the
modification proposed by the gentleman form
Prince George's.
Mr. BUCHANAN was unwilling to submit more
to the Legislature than could he avoided, but still
there were intrinsic difficulties in the way, and it
was impossible to make a Constitutional provi-
sion embrace everything that might be desired in
reference to those public officers. He thought,
on the whole, that the proposition of the gentle-
man from Prince George's was a very good one,
and he would give it his support.
The question recurred upon the amendment as
offered by Mr. SPENCER.
On motion of Mr. SHRIVER,
The amendment was amended by inserting af-
ter "justices of the peace," the words "and con-
stables."
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment as amended. |
Mr. WEEMS moved for a division of the ques-
tion upon each branch of the amendment.
The question then recurred on the first branch
of said amendment, being in these words, "The
Legislature shall prescribe the number of justices
of the peace and constables in each of the coun-
ties in this State and in the city of Baltimore."
Mr. SPENCER demanded the yeas and nays,
which being ordered and taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Randall, Weems, Dal-
rymple, Howard, Lloyd, Colston, Phelps, McCul-
lough, Miller, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright,
Shriver, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore
city, Ware, Fiery, Anderson, Parke, Shower and
Brown-28.
Negative-Messrs. Chapman, President; Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Dorsey, Bond, Buchanan, Bell,
Sherwood of Talbot, James U. Dennis, Dashiell,
Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Bowie,
Sprigg, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Gaither, Annan, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Nelson, Schley, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Weber,
Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith and Cockey-43.
So the first branch of the amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. HOLLIDAY moved to amend the twenty-
first section by striking out from the beginning of
the section to the word "Baltimore" inclusive, in
the the third lind, and inserting in lieu thereof,
the following:
"Before every election of justices of the peace
under this Constitution, it shall be the duty of the
county commissioners to apportion amongst elec-
tion districts in each county, the number of jus-
tices of the peace necessary to discharge the pub-
lic business."
On motion of Mr. PHELPS, the amendment was
amended by inserting after the wolds "Justices
of the Peace," the words "and Constables."
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment as amended.
Mr. SPENCER said:
He was sorry that he could not vote for the
amendment of the gentleman from Allegany, in
his, (Mr. S.'s,) opinion, if it was left to each
county to regulate the number of their municipal
officers, they would become nothing but political
machines. A worse system could not be devised.
We knew how it was with constables, and it
would be much worse in regard to magistrates.
Mr. HOLLIDAY. It is not saying much for the
elective principle.
Mr. BROWN advocated the amendment of the
gentleman; from Allegany, (Mr. Holliday,) de-
claring that he had every confidence in the local
authorities, and believed that they were the best
judges of the wants of the community. He dif-
fered entirely from the gentleman from Queen
Anne's.
Mr. SPENCER had, he said, as much confidence
in the local authorities as any other gentleman,
but he was averse to creating excitement every |
