city. After ten jurors had been sworn to
try him, be filed his suggestion for a removal,
and the case was removed to Anne Arundel
county, and tried there. The case was taken
befare the court of appeals, and they held
that the removal was properly made, upon
the construction of the old law of 1804, which
gave the right of removal in its broadest
terms; upon the mere suggestion made in
writing by the party, "it was obligatory upon
the court to make order for the removal. In
the trial of that case by the court of appeals
a suggestion was thrown out by the court
that a further provision in regard to the. re-
moval of criminal cases would be a proper
one, but that it must originate' with the le-
gislature, and if adopted it would doubtless
be guarded by limitations which might pre-
vent this abuse. It was argued in that case
that the party had really submitted his case
to the jury on the day the jury had been
summoned, and ten of them had been sworn
to try the case. In the estimation of the
court it was an abuse of that privilege for
the removal to take place after the case had
got thus far towards a trial.
That case was decided in 1849. Immedi-
ately after that decision the constitutional
convention of 1850 met. It was composed of
the most eminent men in the State; there
were many lawyers in the body. And they
adopted the provisions of the present consti-
tution, which have been cited by the gentle-
man from Howard (Mr. Sands,) the code
merely codifying the provisions in the con-
stitution. They restricted the right of re-
moval in accordance, I suppose, with the
suggestions of the court of appeals in the
case in 1849. They allowed the suggestion
to be made by the party; they did not leave
it discretionary with the court to remove;
but required the court to remove it upon
such suggestion, provided, however, "that
such suggestion shall be made before or dur-
ing the term on which the issue or issues
may be joined in said suit or action, issues or
petition, presentment or indictment." That
got rid of the difficulty; and I suppose that
was the only difficulty the convention of
1850 saw in this subject of removal. The
old law that bad existed since 1804 and '05,
was a constitutional provision, allowing the
removal to be made at any time, even after
eleven jurors had been sworn, as the court of
appeals had decided in 1849. The conven-
tion restricted the right of removal to the
term at which the issues were joined.
If abuses have crept in under this system,
since the adoption of the constitution of 1850,
it would seem that we get rid of the abuses
by proriding that the removal should be
made within a certain specified time after the
indictment is found or the action commenced.
It should not be left, as this section now
leaves it, entirely discretionary with the
judge to allow the removal or not. It has |
grown up in this State to be considered al-
most as a matter of right that a cause should
be removed to an adjoining county for trial
upon the suggestion of the party. The old
common law required the jury to come from
the vicinage where the act was committed,
or where the party lived. But in very early
times, both in England and in this country
that was departed from, and this right of
removal allowed.
It seems to me this section will in effect
shutout the right of removal in many cases;
it is shutting it up a little too close to leave it
entirely discretionary with the judge, to re-
quire the party to disclose his ground of de-
fence to the judge.
Mr. SANDS. The legislation subsequent to
the adoption of the present constitution,
shows that it was the sentiment of the legis-
lature thus acting, that the right given by
the constitution should be enlarged instead
of restricted. I will read the two sections,
and that will be seen at a glance. The first,
from the present constitution, is as follows :
"And provided also, that such suggestion
shall be made as aforesaid, before or during
the term in which the issue or issues may be
joined in said suit or action, issues or peti-
tion, presentment or indictment, and that
such further remedy in the premises may be
provided by law, as the legislature shall from
time to time direct and enact."
The provisions of the present code show
that when they were adopted the legislature
deemed the provisions of the present consti-
tution too strict in thus binding the parties
down to the time of the joining of issue; that
it was impeding his right of removal, there-
fore the legislature went on to say in section
seventy-two of article seventy-five of the
code, that even after the issues were made
tip, if the party became satisfied after they
were so made up that he had not the chance
for a fair trial in the court in which the
issues had been made up, even then he
should be entitled to the right of removal.
The action of the legislature, as it stands
embodied in the code, shows that they
thought the provision upon this subject in
the constitution needed enlarging rather
than restricting.
Mr. KENNARD. I do not rise for the pur-
pose of engaging in this discussion. But
from my intimate relations with one of the
courts of adjudicature in Baltimore, some
matters of this sort have come under my
personal observation. During the present
term of our court there have been twenty-
three cases removed from our city to the ad-
joining county; and I believe it has been
done in every case for the purpose of avoid.
ing justice. At a previous session of the
court a party was on trial for bigamy. The
main witness was living at a distance, and
the court ordered him to be brought to Balti-
more city at an expense of over one hundred |
