constitution. Alterations would benecessary
only in those sections which provide for the
division of the State into judicial circuits. I
think it would simplify the whole matter
and tend greatly to facilitate the action of
this convention, if some such course as that
was adopted.
Mr. RIDGELY. The difficulty about the
course suggested by the gentleman from How-
ard (Mr. Sands) appears to be this; the gen-
tleman knows very well, that according to
fixed parliamentary law, the friends of a
measure are entitled to the privilege of per-
fecting their measure before the house, and
no vote upon a substitute for the entire pro-
position could be taken before the friends of
the pending proposition bad had an opportu-
nity of perfecting. Hence the course he has
suggested could not be adopted.
Mr. SANDS. I suppose it can be done by gen-
eral consent.
Mr. RIDGELY. It is hardly to be presumed
that that general consent could be had. I
should have no objection in the world to that
course, if the house would give general con-
sent. I think myself it would be the prefer-
able course. But in view of the fact that this
barrier interposes itself to the consideration
of the proposition in that form, unless the gen-
tleman can assure us that there will be gen-
eral consent, (which I think is extremely pro-
blematical,) there is no other mode of reach-
ing the end which the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Audoun) has in view than the
one he has proposed, if the sense of the house
is that the existing judiciary system should
be adopted, then they will vote for it in some
form, .perhaps by amending the instructions
to the committee so as to make them conform
to the sentiment of the house.
We are, of course, not obliged to adopt the
proposition in the specific form offered by the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Audoun.)
It is like all other propositions, open to amend-
ments and modifications. But if it be the ob-
ject of the house to deliver itself from the in-
terminable confusion in which it seems to be
involved at this moment, by reason of the
multiplicity of the propositions and amend-
ments which encumber the subject as it is
now before the house, this is a ready mode of
reaching that end. If it is not prepared so to
do by the specific instructions which accom-
pany the motion made by the gentleman from
Baltimore city, it can supersede those in-
structions by others. But I think sufficient
has transpired here to satisfy the members of
this convention that the report made by the
committee on judiciary will not pass this
house; that it cannot pass this house; that we
shall beengaged here from day to day in dis-
cussing the subject, occupy a long period of
time, and then, like our experience upon the
usury question, perhaps get back finally to
where we started from. Therefore, to avoid
that delay, and to prevent the protraction of |
the session, it seems to me that the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Audoun) has adopted
a very wise plan to ask the house to recommit
this report to the committee with instructions.
If the house is prepared to instruct the com-
mittee to adopt the existing judiciary system,
with such modifications as have been sugges-
ted, it can manifest it at once. I for one will
vote for this recommitment with pleasure.
Mr. DANIEL. I rise to renew the motion to
lay on the table. I wish to say that being a
member of the committee on the judiciary—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pugh.) The motion to
ay on the table is not debatable.
Mr. THOMAS. I would inquire if we adopt
this order of my colleague (Mr. Audoun,) and
the judiciary committee should bring in a re-
port in accordance with these instructions, are
we bound by that report, and cut off from of-
fering amendments to it?
Mr. RIDGELY. Certainly not.
Mr. DANIEL. That shows that this debate
will all have to be gone over again,
Mr. CUSHING. We will get rid of pending
amendments.
Mr. AUDOUN. I have conversed, I believe,
with a majority of the members of this house,
and I think they are anxious that this plan
should be adopted. They are desirous to bring
the session to a close, and to go home. And
this is the only way that I see that can accomplish
that.
Mr. DANIEL. That will be tested directly.
My object is—
Mr. KENNARD. I hope my colleague (Mr.
Daniel) after speaking on this question him-
self as much as he desires, will not insist upon
his motion to lay upon the table, as there
may be other gentlemen who desire to speak
upon this question.
Mr. DANIEL. Well, I will not make that
motion now, I will say what I said before,
and what, as a member of this committee, I
know to be true; that this recommitment
will cause a great deal more delay. There
will be great difficulty I think in getting that
committee together, and getting them to act
sufficiently to draw up an entirely new sys-
tem.
And what work is there left for this house
to do? There is one little report, the report
of the military committee. Here we are with
a full house, having sessions night and day. I
think this house can perfect this judiciary sys-
tem a great deal quicker than the judiciary
committee can. I am as anxious to save time
as is my colleague (Mr. Audoun.) But I
think this house has come pretty much to the
conclusion to adhere to the old judiciary sys-
tem in a great measure, and if it has I do not
see how there can be much debate or difficulty
about the matter. If the house has come to
the conclusion that the old system is the best
one, then why send this matter back to the
committee, and have it come back to the
house, and have all the discussion over it? |
