article. But I think it increases the number
of judges beyond the necessities of the case.
It provides that we shall have twelve dis-
tricts.
Mr. HEBB. That is the nineteenth section,
which was informally pissed over.
Mr. NEGLEY. I thought the nineteenth
section was the amendment pending.
Mr. CLARKE. I withdraw my amendment
with this view, that we cannot vote understandingly
upon section twenty without understandingly
the system which I propose to
offer, and of which the amendment last night
was only one branch . I think if I read the
amendments I propose to offer, the conven-
tion will be in a better frame of mind to un-
derstand the different sections as they may
be offered, section by section as the several sec-
tions are taken up.
[Mr. CLARKE again read sections nineteen
to twenty-four, inclusive, of which be had
given notice immediately before taking up
report this morning.]
This will bring up the question of the two
Bysteins at once. If in order, I will BOW offer
section nineteen, as an amendment to the
present amendment, so that it shall read as
follows:
''Sec. 20. There shall be a judge for each
county in the State, who shall lie elected by
the legal and qualified voters of the several
counties. He shall be a resident for one year
in the county fur which he may be elected
next before the time of his election, and shall
reside in the county for which be is elected
while he" continues to act as judge.
The PRESIDENT. That dues not seem to be
strictly germain to the amendment of the
gentleman from Allegany, which is a section
relating to the courts, that, one shall be held
in each county,
Mr. RIDGELY. I understand the proposi-
tion of the gentleman from Prince George's
(Mr. Clarke) to be a put of an entire system,
which contemplates a circuit and equity
judge ill each county. I would ask him what
(compensation he has in view for these judges ?
Mr. CLARKE. I will state that the plan
which I propose embraces no more judges
than the report of the committee, instead of
having three counties brought into a circuit,
you hare one judge for each county all
through; and the resident judge in the
county shall discharge the chancery powers.
The expense is the same as that contemplated
by the report of the majority of the commit-
tee. There are no more judges; and the ex-
pense is identical.
Mr. HEBB. I offered the proposition in this
form in order to conform to the general fea-
tures of the report of the judiciary committee.
The difference between the proposition I of-
fered and that contained in the report is this :
Then-port proposes twenty-two judges, one
for each county, three judges in the circuit,
My proposition is to have one judge to each |
judicial circuit, and to have a circuit court
in each county over which that judge is to
preside. There can be no difficulty about it.
Any one in favor of having one judge in
each circuit, whether there are eight, ten,
twelve, or fifteen circuits, will be in favor of
my proposition.
Mr. NEGLEY. I conceive that there is no
earthly difference between the section offered
by the gentleman from Allegany and the one
reported by the committee, except that the
section offered by the gentleman from Alle-
gany looks to a one-judge system, and the
other looks to a three judge system; so that
when we vote, these who are in favor of a one-
judge system will vote for the proposition of
the gentleman from Allegany; and those
who are in favor of a three-judge system will
vote against it.
Mr. HEBB. That's it.
Mr. NEGLEY. We can alter it hereafter to
make twelve, nine, or fifteen circuits, as we
please.
Mr. SANDS. I was very much interested last
evening in the remarks of gentleman to whom
1 listened. The more that has been said up-
on this subject—that is, the question of three
judges upon the bench or one—the more 1
have become interested in it. I should like
to hear the views of all gentlemen, professional'
and non-professional, upon the subject. I do
not think that the one consideration with us
should be the consideration of expense. By
calculation, we will find that the expense of
the system as proposed by the committee,
will be about 4 cents on the $100. The as-
sessable property of the State is about $300,-
000,000. The estimated cost of this system
is about $100,000. After all, the expense of
this system would scarcely be fell in the tax-
ation of the State.
The convention has already by its action
appropriated $400,000 annually to the public
school system of the State. We have provid-
ed that $300,000 shall be raised to defray
the immediate expenses of the system, and a
sinking fund created, by a tax of 5 cents on
the $100 on the assessable property of the
State, making in all a levy of about $450,000
annually.
Now I humbly submit that a matter so
important to the people of the State, their
welfare and their safety, their convenience
and their happiness, as the judiciary system
of the State, should not be controlled by the
bare consideration of expense. I for one
would be willing not to tike the expense of
the two systems into consideration; because,
as I said, the taxation to which the State will
be subjected for its judiciary will be not over 4
cents on the $100. It seems to me then that
the sole consideration with this convention
should be, which is the betier system, as pro-
posed to this body.
To the system as reported by the commit-
tee there are some objections. Some of the |
