grant an application if there was no offence
in it.
I would like to see this section passed as it
is, I know the section in the present consti-
tion has been scandalously abused in our
county. Parties have gone unwhipped of
justice just because the cause was removed.
I think there is that disposition in the breast
of all the men of a community, that there is a
sufficient guarantee that they will not convict
a man when he ought not to be convicted in
any case. And In case where there Is an
overwhelming prejudice against a man, any
excitement against him, cannot that fact be
brought before the court? There is no trouble
in the case; this leaves the door open wide
enough.
Mr. STIRLING. My amendment only strikes
out that which requires him to show to the
satisfaction of the court, that he has some
substantial ground of defence.
Mr. SANDS. If the argument of the gentle-
man from Washington county (Mr. Negley)
amounts to anything, it is simply this: that
for fear a rogue would take advantage of a
removal, all honest men are to be deprived of
it. That is just the sum and substance of his
argument.
Mr. NEGLEY. Is not the power of removal
still open under this section? Or is it
closed?
Mr. SANDS. Very nearly; so nearly that
it does not suit me at all. I say, if the argu-
ment of the gentleman from Washington
county amounts to anything, it is simply
this; because a rogue would take advantage
of the right of removal, all honest men in
Washington county ought to be deprived of
it. This section as it stands is a virtual
deprivation of the light of removal. Examine
it; you first require the party to make oath,
and then you leave it to the discretion of the
judge, after that oath is made to say, "prove
that you cannot have a fair trial." What
are the elements that enter into this matter?
There may be prejudice against the party
in the community, if there is a criminal case.
Mr. THRUSTON. Not on the part of the
judge.
Mr. SANDS. On the part of the judge.
Mr. THRUSTON. The judge is the one to
decide upon the removal.
Mr. SANDS. I know all about that; I am
talking about the whole matter. There may
be a prejudice against the party; and be
knows he cannot remove that prejudice from
the jury. He may believe that there are upon
that panel a number of men from whom he
could not have justice. Can he prove that
fact? Suppose my judgment was convinced
that A, B, C and D, upon the jury were my
enemies, and that I could not have at their
hands a fair and impartial verdict, and I
called you up as a citizen of the community
to prove that. Would you swear to that
effect? Certainly not; assuredly not. |
We have abundance of law upon this sub-
ject already, it is said. Well, the gentlemen
are on the two sides of the fence, just as it
suits occasion, upon this matter of putting
things into this constitution, or allowing
legislature to control it. A few momenta
ago an amendment was offered here looking
to the correction of great abuses in our present
judicial system. The answer on all sides
was: " You need not put it in the constitu-
tion; leave it for the legislature,"although
the amendment was but a single line. Now,
when we have in our present code law cover-
ing three or four printed pages, regulating
this matter of removal in all its details;
when we have the whole subject in the power
of the legislature, to he modified by it at its
will and according to its best judgment from
time to time to suit peculiar views, then we
are told that we must put it in the constitu-
tion in the form of this tenth section. Now,
under the provision in section twenty-eight
of the present constitution, and under the
sections of the code touching this right of
removal, the oath of the parly compels re-
moval.
Now in regard to the objection urged here,
that the party may put off the cause from time
to time until be is about to beforced to
trial, and then have the cause removed.
Certainly gentlemen have not looked at the
provisions of the code upon this subject.—
The law is now that if a party does not re-
move his cause as soon as the issues are made
up, he cannot have it removed at all, without
further showing to the court that, since the
making up of those issues, matters have oc-
curred which have created in him the belief
that be cannot have a fair and impartial trial,
then what is the practical result? A and B
are parties to a suit in Baltimore city, and A
wishes to remove it; he must do it just as soon
the issues are made up or be cannot do it at
all.
Mr. STIRLING. That is not the law in the
code.
Mr. SANDS. Let us see,
"Such suggestions shall be made before or
during the term in which the issue or issues
may bejoined in said suit or action, issues or
petition, presentment or indictment."
Mr. STIRLING. '' Unless"—go on.
Mr. SANDS. There is nothing in that clause
which will do your side of the question one
bit of good; for I stated a moment since that
a party had further to make oath to show to
the satisfaction of the court that circum-
stances have occurred since the making up
the issues.
Mr. STIRLING. They will always swear to
that.
Mr. SANDS. I will read, just for the infor-
mation of my friend, from the code :
"In all suits or actions at law, issues from
the orphans' court, or any court sitting in
equity in petitions for freedom, and in all pre- |
