The amendment was rejected,
The question then recurring upon the
adoption of the amendment submitted by
Mr. HEBB, as amended, it was agreed to.
No further amendment was offered to the
third section,
OFFICERS or THE COURTS.
The seventh section, which had been in-
formally passed over, was read as follows :
"Sec. 7. The judge or judges of any court
may appoint such subordinate officers for
their respective courts as maybe found neces-
sary, but none other; and no crier shall be
appointed in any court, but clerks or assistant
clerks, sheriffs or their deputies, or bailiffs,
as the court directs, shall, without additional
compensation, perform the duties heretofore
performed by criers,"
Mr. STIRLING. I move to strike out that
section. The court have the power to do that
without this section; and the only effect of the
section is to abolish the criers, which I really
do not see any necessity for, while I see rea-
sons against it, I think as a general princi-
ple that we ought not to turn people out of
office.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. One word with refer-
ence to that, rather by way of explanation
than argument; because I do not propose to
argue any of these propositions. It is not
the law of the State at this time, with refer-
ence to all the subordinate officers, that they
are appointed by the judges; and in some of
the counties they are appointed in a different
manner. The first part of the section intro-
duces a uniform system throughout the
State, whereas it is not now uniform.
The second part strikes out of existence in
this State an office which has become obsolete
and useless, in the apprehension at least of a
part of the committee. There was a time
when that office was of much importance, in
the early stages of the existence of the courts,
when there were proclamations and calls, and
when they had beraids and various parapher-
nalia that have now gone out of use. They
are now utterly useless appendages to the
court in every instance. They have been
abolished utterly in nearly all the orphans'
courts of this State already; although they
are of as much importance and use there as
elsewhere. I am not aware that there is a
county in the State which retains a crier in its
orphans' courts. I know of no reason why
they should be retained in other courts more
than in that. It is true that in one instance,
in Kent county I believe, certain special du-
ties, by act of assembly have been devolved
upon the crier; he haying been made keeper
of the public buildings also; but that is an
anomaly; and it is not so in other cases.
It is a very considerable expense, more or
less, in all the counties. The lowest salary I
am aware of, fixed for the crier of any court,
is $75 a year. From that it ranges up, there |
being certain fees received also, until the
highest salary received by law is $1,500 a
year, I am not aware that the State, or
that suitors in the courts get any equivalent
for this expense. The expense of that office
in the State must amount to some $12,000 or
$15,000 a year; it cannot be under that; be-
sides the perquisites of the crier not included
in the fixed salary. Believing it is a suffi-
cient object to save this amount of money,
and to save also the fees charged to suitors,
this section is reported as it stands. In my
opinion, it ought to he adopted,
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is the salary of the
crier in Baltimore city?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It is impossible to an-
swer precisely. The salary is $1,500 a year,
and the fees. in the criminal court in Balti-
more there is no fixed salary allowed. He
draws his compensation, whatever it may be,
from the city treasury, from time to time.
It has ranged from $3,000 to upwards of
$5,000. I have not the data to state the
exact amount. It is more than that of the
judge, uniformly; a good deal more.
Mr. BELT. I desire to say in connection
with the remarks of the gentleman from Bal-
timore city, that I voted to strike this section
out; not that I do not agree with my friend
from Baltimore city, the chairman of the ju-
diciary committee (Mr. Stockbridge,) that the
office of crier ought to be abolished; but be-
cause I thought that this was a matter which
would better be referred to the legislature;
and because I am opposed to tying up the
hands of the legislature as to the establish-
ment and abolition of these petty offices. 1
think we shall do best to refer it there; and
therefore I shall support the motion to strike
this section from the constitution.
The motion to strike out the section was
agreed to—ayes 31, noes 26.
TRIAL OF CAUSES.
The ninth section, which had been inform-
ally passed over, was taken up and read, as
amended, as follows:
"Sec. 9. The legislature shall provide for
the trial of causes in case of the disqualifica-
tion of all of the judges of the circuit, but the
parties to any cause may, by consent, appoint
a proper person to try said cause, or may try
any cause before the court without the inter-
vention of ajury."
The pending question wag stated upon the
amendment submitted by Mr. NEGLEY, to
strike out in line two "all of the judges,"
and to insert "any judge."
Mr. HEBB. That was taken up again in
the evening, and on motion of Mr. THRUSTON
the following section was substituted, as ap-
pears from page 479 of the journal :
' ' The general assembly shall provide for
the trial of causes in case of the disqualifica-
tion of all of the judges of the circuit to heir
and determine the same, but in case of such |
