sideration, as reported by the committee,
goes upon the basis of an appointive three-
judge system, and generally prescribes the
whole mode of the appointment of all the
judges of the State. Following that precise
mode of arrangement, and differing only in
regard to the mode of selecting the judges,
the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Hebb)
proposes to leave the general design of the
committee in regard to the mode of arrange-
ment to stand as it now is, but to make the
section conform to the principle which the
convention has adopted, by substituting the
elective for the appointive system. If the
convention wishes to adopt the arrangement
of the present constitution, then they must
adopt some way of getting rid of this whole
report, and substituting something else in its
place.
Mr. THOMAS. I desire to inquire whether
the substitute which I offered for the twelfth
section, and which will be found on page 487
of the journal, would be in order as a substi-
tute for this section? It relates to the court
of appeals, providing for dividing the State
into districts, and confining the election of the
judges to those districts respectively, instead
of having them elected by the State at large
as proposed by the gentleman from Allegany
(Mr. Hebb.) The first branch of his proposi-
tion is that the judges of the court of appeals
shall be elected by the qualified voters of the
State.
The PRESIDENT. That has already been de-
cided by a vote of the convention upon an
amendment to the twelfth section.
Mr. THOMAS. Then why put it in here
again ?
The PRESIDENT. The chair has nothing to
do with that.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I suppose every one un-
derstood that it was necessary to make all the
sections of this report correspond with the
principle adopted by the convention. When
we come to consider this third section, it is
necessary to modify it. Although I do not
agree to the policy of making our judiciary
elective, yet as the convention has decided in
favor of it, I do not propose to raise any ob-
jection to modifying the various sections so as
to harmonize with the action of the conven-
tion.
The PRESIDENT. This is a mere general
provision. It can make no difference if the
general provisions are reasserted in the sub-
divisions.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. The convention
has determined to elect the judges of the court
of appeals by general ticket. But at the time
that determination was expressed there was
an amendment pending to that section,
Therefore no final and determinate action has
been taken upon that section by the conven-
tion; and when it comes up for final deter-
mination the amendment of the gentleman |
from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) will still
be in order.
The PRESIDENT. Certainly; it will then be
in order.
Mr NEGLEY. I suppose that any amend-
ment that we should propose, which should
contravene anything the convention has
already determined upon, could not be re-
ceived without a reconsideration of the action
of the convention.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Would it
be in order to move to postpone the section
now under consideration until I cam move a
reconsideration of the vote by which the con-
vention determined to elect the judges of the
court of appeals on general ticket ?
The PRESIDENT. It would be in order to
move to pass over it informally.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Then 1
submit that motion.
The question was then taken upon the mo-
tion to pass over informally the third section
of the report, and it was not agreed to.
The question then recurred upon the first
branch of the amendment of Mr. HEBB.
Mr CHAMBERS. That involves two ques-
tions; first the principle of election, and next
the election by the State at large. I am op-
posed to both,
The first branch of Mr. HEBB'S amendment
is as follows:
Strike out all of the first sentence of the
third section after the word "judges" and
insert "of the court of appeals shall be elected
by the qualified voters of the State."
Upon this question Mr. MILLER called for
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 24—as fol-
lows ;
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Dellin-
ger, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hebb, Hoff-
man, Hopkins. Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Kee-
fer, Larsh, Mayhugh, McComas, Mullikin,
Murray, Negley. Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Pur-
nell, Ridgely, Robinette, Russell, Schley,
Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Swope,
Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Valliant, Wickard,
Wooden—40.
Nays— Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Brown, Cham-
bers, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Gale, Hodson,
Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lee, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Parran; Stockbridge, Tur-
ner—24.
The first branch of the amendment was ac-
cordingly adopted.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the
following explanations were made by mem-
bers, as their names were called :
Mr. BELT. I desire to say one word in ex-
planation of my vote. I shall vote in the
negative for the reason that being generally
in favor of the appointive system of the judi- |
