delay the business of the court more than one
will, because of the very lime consumed in
consultation about the propositions submitted
before they can decide upon them.
I do not think that with the most energetic
men in the State of Maryland upon the bench
of the circuit, that would be formed of Allega-
ny, Washington and Frederick counties they
could discharge the duties of that court with
three judges upon the bench.
So far as this matter of injunctions and
writs of habeas corpus is concerned, what dif-
ferent state of things do you have under this
system from that under the one-judge system?
The court is sitting in Allegany county, for
instance. Must not the three judges be there?
Have not we placed the three judges upon the
same bench? Would not the citizens of
Washington county or Frederick county, if
they wanted an injunction, have to go lo
Allegany county for it? And when the court
go from Allegany to Washington county, in
their circuit, would not the three judges all
be there, and if the people of Allegany or
Frederick wanted writs of habeas corpus or
injunctions, would they not have to go to
Washington county for them? And when
the court went to Frederick county, would
not the citizens of Washington and Allegany
have the trouble of coming over the moun-
tains to Frederick for these purposes? The
objections urged to the one-judge system have
no foundation so far as this matter is con-
cerned; for you would have to follow the
court in its circuit, whether there were three
judges or one. You have to follow the court
as a unit. if it is one, you have to follow it ;
if it is two, you have to follow it; and if it
is three, it is still a unit, and that one court
you have to follow.
Mr. MILLER. Does not the gentle man know
that issuing the writ of habeas corpus is a duty
which pertains to the judge and not to the
court?
Mr. SANDS. I know that. But would not
that judge be a part of the court? and
would you not have to go to the court to find
the judge, whether in Frederick, Washington
or Allegany?
Mr. MILLER. No, sir; not if one judge is
all you want.
Mr. SANDS. If three judges constitute the
court, the three judges will always be where
the court is, whether in Frederick, Washing-
ton or Allegany. Now I ask my friend from
Washington whether he believes that the
court could discharge the business of that cir-
cuit? I ask the gentlemen advocating this
amendment whether they believe that if the
convention adopt the theory, the theory is at
all practicable? I do not believe it is. I do
not believe the gentlemen can answer this in
the affirmative.
Something has been said about the wishes
of the people, and bow far we ought to con-
sult them, or not to consult them. I do not |
know how the delegation from Washington
stands. I believe they are divided, lam sure
that the delegation from Frederick, large and
populous as a county, and numerous in its
representation here, are a unit in opposition
to this system; and I understand that out
of the delegation from Allegany—while of
course I do not mean to impugn the right of
any one member to urge his own views of the
matter—but one single member forms it.
There are only two or three gentlemen on this
floor from Western Maryland who indorse
this system. And it is practically true that
to the public sentiment of that part of the
State, large and populous as it is, we must
look for the votes for this constitution. And
votes are vital; for if the constitution is lost
this pet judiciary system is gone. You get
neither one system nor the other. You resign
both by clinging pertinaciously to one.
I would myself be glad to oblige gentlemen
of the opposition by advocating this measure.
1 am perfectly plain and honest in telling
them that I do not do it for the reason I have
stated, that I believe it will endanger the con-
stitution before the people, and I will do noth-
ing that will do that. I like it for the same
reason that some gentlemen dislike it; because
the negro is in it, and I want him out
of the way; and I will give my vote for a
judiciary system or anything else likely to
help us in getting him out of the way.
Mr. KENNARD moved that the convention do
now adjourn.
Mr. MILLER. You cannot make that motion
without intervening business.
Mr. HEBB moved a call of the convention.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. HEBB moved that the convention do
now adjourn.
Mr. NEGLEY demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 35, nays 25—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Cunning-
ham, Cushing, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow,
Galloway, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopper, Horsey,
Johnson, Keefer, Kennard, King, Mayhugh,
McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Nyman, Parker,
Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands,
Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Wor-
cester, Stirling, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Wooden—35.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Belt, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Craw-
ford, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Gale, Hodson,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Lansdale, Lee, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Negley, Parran, Thruston,
Turner—25.
When their names were called,
Mr. CHAMBERS said; I have invariably
voted for an adjournment at night. I did so
a while ago. But believing this an attempt
at coercion, I vote " no."
Mr. ECKER said: For the reason assigned |
