the gentleman to show me that any states-
man of the State of Maryland has ever sug-
gested the idea, even thought of or dreamed
of the idea of paying the judges of the court of
appeals, for instance, out of the treasury of
the particular district from which they come.
The gentlemen from Baltimore have talked
very freely of the expense to their particular
portion the State, Why, sir, where does
Baltimore get her money from? Where do
the profits come from which are made in the
city of Baltimore? How is it sustained? Is
justice sold to each county according to its
means I say there is no precedent for such
a state of things, if you go for this, you
should let the county regulate its own affairs,
adjust the salaries and arrange the whole con-
cern. Are you going to cut up the adminis-
tration of justice into slices, and divide it
among the counties according to their means ?
I think that we are coming to strange times in-
deed. Novelties involve is the very peace of
our communities have been most abundant,
from the very day of our coming here. Gen-
tlemen from the city of Baltimore should re-
collect how much the counties have contrib-
uted to build the canals and the railroads that
have made her what she is.
Mr. CUSHING. The gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Berry) made the suggestion to
the house yesterday, that the counties wanted
to pay for them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Berry is not here to
answer for himself. I heard no such sugges-
tion from him. But I do not care where it
comes from; it is a heresy; and I think it
shows an enlargement of imagination that I
did not suppose Mr. Berry possessed. I pro-
test against it in the strongest terms, as an
infringement of the rule of propriety adopted
everywhere. The idea that justice is thus to
be sliced up and parcelled out, made the sub-
ject of bargain and sale to the different coun-
ties of the State—1 say it is a heresy of the
very highest character. I should be exceed-
ingly pleased to see it receive the marked dis-
countenance of this body. I refrain from
saying more at this time; for I believe that
it cannot find very many advocates here.
Mr. AUDOUN demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being, taken, the result was
—yeas 36, nays 40—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Brooks, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis,
of Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins,
Hopper, Keefer, Ken n a rd, King, Larsh, Markey,
McComas, Nyman, Robinette, Russell, Sands,
Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Wickard, Wood-
en—36.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Brown,
Carter, Chambers, Crawford, Dennis, Dent,
Duvall, Edelen, Farrow, Gale, Henkle, Hol- |
lyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lansdale, Lee,
Mayhugh, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Murray,
Negley, Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Pur-
nell, Ridgely, Schlosser, Smith, of Dorches-
ter, Smith, of Worcester, Thruston, Todd,
Turner, Wilmer—40.
When their names were called,
Mr. NEGLEY said: The first reason why 1
cannot vote for this is that the county courts
are very often used for lire collection of debts
by persons living in Baltimore; and the second
reason is that the State fixes the salary and
mode of payment. If they will allow the
counties to make their own contract with
their own judge, I might vote for it; other-
wise I cannot. I vote "no."
Mr. SANDS said: I vole for this proposition
because Howard county does not want ajudge
for itself, and if it did would be willing to
pay for it. I vole ''aye."
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
The question recurred on Mr. MILLER'S
amendment.
Mr. KEEFER moved to amend the amend-
ment by striking out the words "several
counties," in line two, and inserting "State
at large."
Mr. MILLER. We have adopted this as an
amendment; and the ruling of the chair has
been heretofore that although you may amend
by adding you cannot strike out.
The PRESIDENT, This section is not perfected
yet. The question is yet to be taken on the
amendment of the gentleman from Allegany
as amended; and it may be still further
amended.
The amendment to the amendment was re-
jected.
The question again recurred on the adop-
tion of Mr HEBB'S amendment as amended by
adopting Mr. MILLER'S substitute.
Mr. PUGH demanded the yeas and nays, and
they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was
—yeas 33, nays 44—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond,
Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Crawford, Dennis)
Dent, Duvall. Edelen, Gale, Henkle, Hodson,
Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lansdale, Lee,
Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Negley Parran, Pe-
ter, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester,
Smith, of Worcester, Swope, Thruston, Todd,
Turner, Wilmer—33.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Brooks, Carter,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis) of
Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Gal-
loway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh,
Markey. Mayhugh, McComas, Murray, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Robinette,
Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Sneary,
Stirling, Sykes, Thomas, Wickard, Wood-
en—44.
The amendment as amended was accordingly
rejected. |
