is no doubt that it is a general principle which
the convention are as competent to decide
now as at any other time. I agree with him
in nearly everything he has said; although I
do not agree with him precisely, for this reason.
I bad made up my mind to accept the
report of the committee. I thought that the
committee having investigated and digested a
plan, it would be much easier to take the sys-
tem substantially as they had adopted it, so
far as its general principles are concerned. I
would not have bound myself to all its de-
tails. But the convention has absolutely
modified that principle. The system propos-
ed in this report is a system of three judges,
going; back to the plan before the present con-
stitution, when the judges were appointed
by the governor during good behavior. The
convention has determined that its judges
shall be elected, while I was perfectly willing,
go far as my individual opinions were concern-
ad, to vote for the three-judge system as pro-
posed in this report, I cannot agree to vote
for three judges according to this plan, to be
elected by the people. It will run the elective
system into the ground, to cause such a large
number of judges that it will positively bring
the judicial office directly into politics. It
will offer so many offices to the competition of
members of the bar, that there will be constant
elections of judges from among them.
I do not believe it is worth while to incur
the expense of a three-judge system, to be
chosen in the mode in which the convention
have determined to choose them. I am not
willing to incur the expense of this system,
the judges being elected under the present
Bystem. I think the result will be that we
shall not be able to come to any conclusion if
we attempt to perfect such a system. It seems
to me that all the convention can do now is
to adopt and modify the system of the pre-
sent constitution.
It requires some modification because it
works some injustice. There are some cir-
cuits in this State in which it is absolutely
impossible to transact their business. I think
if my friend from Baltimore county were pre-
sent at this time, he could give some practical
experience how the matter works there. In
the circuit composed of Baltimore, Howard
and Cecil counties, there is an absolute denial
of justice. It is impossible for suitors to get
their suits tried; for no mortal man can dis-
charge the duties of these three counties.
Baltimore county alone has business enough
before its court to test the capacity of any
single man. I am satisfied from what I know
of the practice in some of the other counties of
the State that there are one or two other
counties which have business enough for a
single judge.
I should prefer, as the matter now stands,
that we should have a one-judge system, and
so reduce the larger districts that business
may be transacted by one judge. I do no |
see that we can do anything else. There is
no doubt that there will he great difficulty
about the expense of the other system. I do
not consider it too much to pay, hot other
members of the convention will consider it too-
much to pay. I shall be disposed to vote for
the proposition of the gentleman from Alle-
gany substantially, because it does remedy
the practical difficulties by diminishing the
size of the circuits, while it keeps the one-
judge system in operation.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I do not know
whether the chairman of the committee (Mr.
Stockbridge) adverted to the fact that the
one-judge system necessitates the employment
of special judges to a very great extent; and
1 question whether, if the account were strictly
kept of all the employment of special judges;
the expense would not be found sufficient to
employ at least one additional judge; and
whether it is not worthy of consideration
that in the three-judge system you have a
far greater certainty of having a judge whose
regular business it is to hold courts, who
has been regularly appointed or elected and
commissioned to that office, to hold a
court, and need not resort lo special judges
in so many cases. I think one of the princi-
pal reasons for resorting to the three-judge
system is the frequent necessity for resorting
to special judge's and the expense attending it.
The other consideration is important also,
that in many of the districts the distance of
the judge from some portions of the district
is such that it is impracticable to reach him,
which amounts to a practical denial of jus-
tice, especially in cases of injunction. 1
have had myself in urgent cases to ride fifty
miles in the winter season by a private con-
veyance to find a judge to get an injunction,
and if lie had happened to be away from
home I should have had my whole trip for
naught. I have ridden fifty miles and back,
making one hundred miles, and in other parts
of the district they would have lo ride seventy
or eighty miles. This is an inconvenience.
1 do not think the additional expense at
all is to be compared to the additional con-
venience afforded to the people. Where there
are two or three judges it would certainly
avoid the delay, in Baltimore, county they
could divide the business between the three
judges, one hearing appeals, another criminal
matters, and the third equity matters, for
instance; and they could all be together to
hear cases tried at common law before juries.
1 submit that I think it will be very great
economy ultimately, as well as a very great
convenience to the people, to adopt the three-
judge system.
Mr. AUDOUN. My friend opposed the
amendment offered by)} the gentleman from
Allegany county, because it does not pro-
vide tor one learned in the law, for the or-
phans' court. If he will turn to page 446 of
the journal, he will find a section offered by |
