certain principles with regard to the court of
appeals, and the courts of the counties. Will
it be allowable to make that motion, if this
amendment is voted upon?
The PRESIDENT, it will be in order to
move to recommit the report.
Mr. MAYHUGH demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 29, nays 28—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Belt, Berry, of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe,
Brown, Chambers, Crawford, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Gale, Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson,
Lansdale, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Negley, Nyman, Parran, Purnell, Smith, of
Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Swope, Thrus-
ton, Turner—29.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President
Abbott, Annan, Cunningham, Cushing,
Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hopkins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Mayhugh, McComas, Mullikin, Parker, Pugh,
Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Stirling,
Sykes, Thomas, Wooden—28.
When their names were called,
Mr. SANDS said: As a member of the com-
mittee I should like to say a word in expla-
nation of my vote. The theory of the report
is unexceptionable. The arguments advanced
in its support by the gentleman from Allega-
ny (Mr. Thruston) are in almost all respects
unanswerable. I would not myself regard
the expense of the system. It is scarcely an
item in the account. But I do see great dif-
ficulties in the practical operation of our ex-
cellent theory. Some of our counties thrown
together by it are very large—Allegany,
Washington and Frederick. I doubt much
if any one court could transact the business
of that circuit. Again, some of the counties
are very small. They would not have busi-
ness enough to occupy the court. If there is
a disposition to add to this proposition an
amendment to the effect that every county
shall pay its own judge, I feel certain that if
this amendment should prevail it would array
all the smaller counties against us. For
these, among other reasons, as at present
advised, I must vote "no."
Mr. STIRLING said: I will say that my
feelings, so far as they are concerned, are in
favor of the proposition; but it does not meet
with sufficient unanimity and support from
those interested in it to make it in my judg-
ment safe for us to support it. If I saw any
considerable part of our friends in the coun-
ties disposed to favor it, I should vote for it;
but at present I must vote " no."
The amendment to the amendment was
accordingly adopted.
Mr. HEBB, It is not adopted as an amend-
ment to the section yet.
The question recurred on the adoption of
the amendment to the section, as amended on
motion of Mr. MILLER. |
Mr. BELT. I take it for granted from the
vote just taken that the matter is settled. 1
am willing when by a decided vote a prin-
ciple is settled, that it shall then rest; and 1
hope there is no intention on the part of the
gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Hebb) by a
second vote to draw the house to a different
judgment,
Mr. STIRLING. I will inform the gentleman
from Prince George's (Mr. Belt) that I do not
consider it settled; for I am satisfied that
there is a large majority against it.
Mr. BELT. I have no doubt the result was
as much a matter of surprise to the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) as to
the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Hebb.)
But the matter having been settled by the
vote of the convention, I trust the same
courtesy will be extended to the majority
upon this question as upon every other.
Mr. STIRLING. I do not intend to discuss
this proposition; but if you will analyze this
vote it appears that the counties that have
the least necessity for the one-judge system of
judges have voted for the one-judge system;
while the counties in which there is the
greatest necessity for a one-judge system have
mostly voted against it. The fact is, as I
said before, that the vote does not show that
there is that amount of unanimity among the
convention itself, although there is a majority
of one for it to-night, there is not that unan-
imity in point of strength and interest, that
a proposition of that kind ought to com-
mand.
I do not wish to introduce into the deci-
sion of this question any matter at all po-
litical in its character; but in order to carry
out this system we have got to have it adopted
by the people. Now the counties that voted
for it are not going to help to carry the con-
stitution; while the counties that voted against
it, as a general thing, are the counties that
will help to carry the constitution among the
people. If the gentlemen from these counties
will tell me that they are in favor of adopting
it before the people, I will vote for it. But I
do not think it is proper to make a change in
our judicial system that does not meet the
support of that part of the convention that
will endeavor to carry this constitution.
It seems to me that our present system, by
enlarging the number of districts, and putting
fewer counties in the districts, will accomplish
everything that is necessary. I cannot see
why Calvert needs a single judge; and there
are one or two other counties in the same
position where there certainly cannot be a
necessity for that system. I am perfectly
willing to vote for a large number of circuits,
so that there may not be three or four coun-
ties together. But when I see that the large
counties themselves are unwilling to take this
proposition, whose constituents are so much
more numerous than the constituents of the
gentlemen who voted for it, it seems to me |
