sentments and indictments instituted in any
of the courts of law in this State, the judge
thereof, upon suggestion in writing if made
by the State's attorney or the prosecutor
for the State, or upon suggestion in writing,
supported by affidavit made by any of the
parties thereto, or other proper evidence that
a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the
court where such suit or action at law, issues,
petition or presentment and indictment is
pending, shall order and direct the record of
proceedings therein to be transmitted to the
court of the adjoining county, whether such
adjoining county bewithin the judicial circuit
or not, fur trial, which court shall hear and
determine the same in like manner as if it had
been originally instituted therein."
And then this comes in :
"Such suggestion shall be made before or
during the term in which the issue or issues
may be joined in said suit or action, issue or
issues, presentment or indictment, unless the
party applying for such removal shall, in ad-
dition to such affidavit, further state he
had come to such belief, or had been convinced
of that fact since the issues had been made
up—"
That is the law upon this subject in this
State to-day.
—"on which additional statement being
made and filed, the cause shall be removed,
notwithstanding the issues had been made up."
What is clearer than this fact: that the law,
as I stated it before reference to the authori-
ties, is just exactly the law of the book?—
How does it practically operate? In Baltimore
city, for instance, a party must demand his
removal at the term in which the issues are
made up; or if he neglects to do it then, he
cannot do so afterwards, unless he assures the
court that since the issues were made up he
has been convinced that he cannot have a fair
and impartial trial, and he therefore asks the
removal that he did not ask before.
Now, I say we have in tire code here sev-
eral pages upon the subject of removal. And
I suggest that it would be right to leave it
as it is, as gentlemen are so fond of leaving
things to the discretion of the legislature, to
be modified at their will. When in urging
the other amendment, which I thought would
have a very salutary influence, I suggested
that we better put it in the constitution, it
was said—"No, do not put it in there, be-
cause it. cannot he changed." Yet you pro-
pose to make provision to have your con-
stitution amendable by the people. I do
think this right of removal is a right which
honest men very often desire to have, which
it is very vital to them in in many cases to have,
and of which we have no right at all to de-
prive them. Now, the section as it stands
here; the action of the committee has been
referred to. There was never a vote taken
upon this section.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE [interrupting.] The gen- |
tleman utterly mistakes, If he had attended
half the meetings of the committee, he would
know more about it than that.
Mr. SANDS. Well, all I have to say—
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I wish once for all, as a
matter of personal right and privilege, to
state that I did not bring in any report from
that committee that was not the report of the
committee. And I will not submit here or
elsewhere to any imputation of that sort
thrown upon me as the chairman of the com-
mittee which made this report.
Mr. SANDS. I make no imputation.
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE. Is it no imputation to
say there was no vote taken upon this sub-
ject ?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I know there
was a vote taken, after full discussion.
Mr, SANDS, it was not taken in my pres-
ence. I know if I had ever been called upon
to give a vote, it would not have been in
favor of taking away from a man the right
of removal, which right might be vital to
him in relation to his property or his life.
And believing that we have plenty of legis-
lation upon this subject already, and believ-
ing that this right is one of which the citizens
of this State ought not to be deprived 1
hope the section will he stricken out.
Mr. THRUSTON. I think it is right to ex-
plain to the convention the object of this law,
which the gentleman (Mr. Sands) has not
done. In the first place, it is well known to
the profession that in nine cases out of ten
the issues are never joined until the parlies
are ready for trial. And the object of put-
ting the law in this way is this; if a party
joins issue and gives no notice to the other
party, that he is going to move in the case,
until the other party is just going into the
trial, it lakes the party by surprise. That is
the reason why the law is put in this way;
that before a party joins issue he must give
notice that he wishes to remove the cause to
another court for trial; otherwise the other
party goes to all the expense of getting ready
for the trial in the court at which the issues
are joined. Nine times out often, the term at
which the issues are. joined, is the trial term.
And when that is not. the case, it is but right
that the party should notify the other of his
intention to remove his cause, and not make
him go to all the expense of getting ready
for trial, and then remove to another court.
Mr. MILLER. I merely wish to say in ref-
erence lo this subject of removals, that the
difficulty, if there has been any difficulty, is
not attributable solely to the present consti-tution
of this State. It has been the law of
the State since 1804, that in all criminal pro-
ceedings a removal might be made upon a
bare suggestion made by the parly. And in
1838 the privilege of removal was given in
civil cases. in 1849 a case came before the
court of appeals 'where that privilege was
exercised by a person indicted in Baltimore |
