not propose now, as it seems to me improper
and out of place to discuss any of the other
propositions which may come up in their turn,
Mr. SANDS. No one has a higher appreci-
ation of file fairness of the gentleman from
Carroll (Mr. Smith,) than I have. No one appreciates
more highly ills honest earnestness in
any matter which he advocates. Still elo-
quent as he is, he has not entirely cleared up
some very weighty objections in my mind.
If I believed this was the last opportunity
that the people of Maryland were going to
have to reform the judiciary, I should be dis-
posed to make great sacrifices looking to that
end; but when it is a fact notorious to every
gentleman in this convention that this con-
stitution will provide for its own constant
amendment according to the will and wishes
of the people, I put it to gentlemen of the
majority of this house whether we have a
moral right to touch any provision of this
constitution we are sure will make it unpalatable
to a large portion of the people of the
State.
I will say to my friends that they need not
have any delusive hope about getting support
for this constitution on account of any judi-
ciary system they may frame or incorporate
in it, I have no doubt hut that if the simple
question was before the people whether they
would retain their present judiciary system, or
adopt that indicated in this amendment, my
friends would go before the people and urge it
there quite as eloquently and as pertinently as
they have done it here, and would vote with
as great unanimity as they do now. But
they will excuse me for the belief and the
conviction that above this question of the ju-
diciary of the State there are issues in the
coming election upon this constitution which
are going to be final and conclusive with
each and every one of them. They may be
willing, and doubtless are anxious that this
system of their liking and .of my personal
liking, shall be attached to the constitution
with the hope that if the constitution shall
prevail this will be one benefit to them. Of
course I believe they are entirely sincere in
that. But I repeat again to my friends, that
they must not look for one vote for this con-
stitution from the opposition ranks, it one
gentleman of the opposition would rise in his
place tonight and say, ''I will vote for this
constitution, if that is put in it, and will urge
my people to do it," God knows how gladly
I would vote with him to put it in.
Mr. BELT. Will my friend allow me to ask
him one question? Do I understand the gentleman
from Howard to say that his vote upon
the question bow the judiciary system shall
be established, will be controlled by his view
of the probable vote upon the adoption of the
constitution?
Mr. SANDS. I will answer that question
very plainly. If I believed my vote for the
judiciary system as proposed by the commit- |
tee was going to lose this constitution before
the people, or endanger its acceptance, I would
sooner lose my right hand than to vote for it.
Mr. BELT. Then it is a secondary consid-
eration whether it is a desirable system. But
1 do not understand my friend from Howard
to impute to any gentleman upon this side of
the house that his vote is guided by any such
considerations, and until that is avowed it is
unnecessary for me—
Mr. SANDS. No, sir; I think my proposi-
tion is a very plain one; and it is not intended
to give personal umbrage to any one. I do
not believe this constitution if we adopt the
judiciary system spoken of, is going to get a
single vote from a single gentleman of the
opposition upon this floor.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. While 1
shall oppose the constitution on other grounds,
1 will tell the gentleman this; that I will
offer the same arguments before the people in
approval] of the judiciary system, if it shall be
adopted, that I have done tonight.
Mr. SANDS. That amounts precisely to
what I said. If they can get this judiciary
system in the constitution, it is a God-send to
them; but they are not going to vote for your
constitution and mine, the constitution framed.
by the majority of this house to get all the
judiciary systems on earth rammed into one
and given to them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Not with the negro in it?
Mr. SANDS. No; "not with the negro in
it," Gentleman may as well know where the
opposition stand with regard to it. Not
while the negro is in it, will you ever get
one of their votes.
Mr. BELT. Not mine.
Mr. SANDS. No; "not mine," I suppose
might be repeated all round.
Now I want to ask my friend from Wash-
ington county (Mr. Negley,) turning from
political considerations to legal considerations,
whether he believes that such a provision as
that proposed is practicable; whether he be-
lieves that the business of Allegany, Wash-
ington, and Frederick counties) can be dis-
charged by any one court? Because, mark
you, according to the experience of the oldest
and the ablest judges who now occupy the
bench, while the three-judge system is good in
itself, because you had a chance to get a bet-
ter and safer opinion from the court, upon
which you could more surely rely, the very
consultation necessary to make up that. opin-
ion so far delayed the progress of the business
of the court. It has been found, in the ex-
perience of judges now upon the bench, and 1
have it from the lips of some of the best of
them, that business is more rapidly transacted
under one-judge. I am sorry I have not at
band a communication I received in my place
from his honor, Judge Brewer, giving his ex-
perience for nearly thirty years. But I say
that is the plain common sense view of the
matter, that three judges upon the bench will |
