nience under the present system. That is the
reason I presume that these gentlemen are
divided upon that question,
Mr. THRUSTON. I understand that the gen-
tleman from Calvert alluded to me in his re-
marks just now. I did not hear his remarks.
Mr. Briscoe. I alluded to the gentleman
from Allegany having voted for the sub-
stitute of the gentlemen from Anne Arundel
(Mr. Miller.)
Mr. THRUSTON. Yes, sir. I voted with the
majority; but I would like to know what
the gentleman said upon the subject.
Mr. STIRLING. It was in answer to my ar-
gument.
Mr. THRUSTON. Very well. I say this:
it does not disturb the orphans' court. The
judge elected {selected by the people as much
as any member of the orphans' court is now
elected by the people. If gentlemen come
here to get their opinions of the popularity
or unpopularity of certain measures, they
will all differ. I think it will make" this pop-
ular. I know that our people will suffer in-
convenience under the old system, and I think
this will commend the constitution to the
people rather than the reverse. Where we
differ upon these questions the right way is
to look at the measure itself, and see whether
it conduces to the public weal. If it does we
should vote for it, unless we are positively
certain that it will have a damnifying effect.
if it is conducive to the public good, we
have a right to presume that the public will
see that, and appreciable it. Therefore I think
we ought not lo give such considerations any
weight whatever.
Mr. NEGLEY. I voted for this proposition
of the gentleman from Aline Arundel (Mr.
Miller, )and I will continue to vote fur it.
I believe that instead of damaging the con-
stitution, it will have a great tendency to
bring lo its support a large number of per-
sons. There was a large class of people in
Washington county that were favorable to
the old system, the appointive and three-judge
system. This is a compromise between the
old three-judge system and the appointive
system, and the elective system with one
judge. We have the elective feature. We
have the three-judge characteristic. And I
do believe that friends of the constitution
that might have been prejudiced against,
under the elective system merely will be in-
duced under the three-judge system to vote
for it.
It does correct two evils we have labored
under. We have labored under the curse of
a special judge system. I have in my pocket
a letter I received from one of the first citizens
of the county asking that something
might be done lo give some relief from
the curse of the special-judge system. He
happened to be one of those who had busi-
ness in court, and saw how it operated. By
electing one judge in each county, we get rid
51 |
of the expense the nuisance of appoint-
ing special judges. And we get rid too of
the trouble and difficulty of sending from
Washington county, sixty-six miles to have
an injunction issued, or to have some equity
paper signed. These are two, and the
only two grievances in regard to the opera-
tion of the present system that our people
have complained of. Any system that will
relieve our people of these grievances, I am
sure will meet with their approbation, when
it does not increase the expense to the State
over fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, which
is its utmost limit of increase in expense over
the present judiciary system, and for this
little additional expense I think the people of
the State will be largely repaid. I am deci-
dedly in favor of it, because I feel absolutely
certain that unless we gel Ibis system, the
convention will go back to the present system,
and we shall still he forced to put up
with these manifold inconveniences.
Mr. KEEFER moved that the convention do
now adjourn.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll, demanded the yeas
and nays, which were ordered.
The question toeing taken the result was—
'yeas 21, nays 39— as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Chambers, Crawford,
Cunningham, Cushing, Dellinger, Gale,
Galloway Hoffman, Hopper, Horsey, Keefer,
Kennard, King, Mayhugh, McComas) Mullikin,
Schley, Stirling, Thomas, Wooden—21.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Annan, Belt, Berry, of Prince George's,
Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe, Brown,
Dent, Duvall, Ecker, Edelen, Farrow, Hebb,
Hodson, Hollyday, Hopkins, Johnson, Lansdale,
Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Murray,
Negley. Nyman, Parker, Parran, Pugh, Pur
nell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Smith, of
Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Swope, Sykes,
Thruston, Turner—39.
The convention accordingly refused to ad-
journ. The question recurred upon the
adoption of Mr. MILLER'S amendment an
amendment to the original section reported
i by the committee.
Mr. THOMAS. I desire to submit but ore
remark in relation to this proposition. Were
it not for the fact that I represent a. constituency
that I know will be obliged to pay for
this new judicial system that is proposed to.
he inaugurated in the State, at least the
greater part of it, I would not trouble the
convention by making any remarks upon it.
But I say now that unless the counties
agree to pay for this luxury they intend to.
have, there are thousands of people in my
city that will not support your constitution.
they have been taxed enough. The gentle-
man from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) seeks
to convince this convention that byadopting
this system you get rid of ',special judges. 1
will ask the gentleman from Anne Arundel |
