judge of the chancery court upon the bench of
the criminal court. I say that the people of
the city of Baltimore, so far as that court is
concerned, are unanimously opposed to dis-
placing the present judge of the criminal
court. Yet this provision practically destroys
his power by forcing him to act with an asso-
ciate. It makes a two-judge system practi-
cally in the criminal court, and a two-judge
system is the very worst kind of a system of
criminal jurisdiction because it destroys prac-
tically all unity of purpose and executive
force, while the great business of that court
is to administer a jurisdiction which is quasi
executive. The smaller cases are more to be
regulated by a uniform policy than by any
other principle. If there are two courts, the
practice of which is inconsistent, they are the
chancery and criminal courts. There is cer-
tainly more similarity between common law
and equity than between criminal cases and
chancery cases. The civil and criminal law
are frequently blended in one court; but cer-
tainly chancery powers have not been often
blended with the powers of criminal courts,
except where one man is forced to administer
all, and the criminal docket amounts to scarce-
ly anything,
This last feature is my greatest objection to
the report. I certainly would never consent
to the destruction of the criminal court as it
at present exists; and if there were no other
objection to the report than that, I should
oppose it; and I believe that I represent the
sentiments of ninety-nine out of a hundred of
those who sent me here in expressing these
views with regard to the criminal court. I
shall support this proposition. But I intend
to support an amendment to the subsequent
section to increase the jurisdiction of the
court of common pleas from $500 up to $800
or $1,000.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I wish to say a few
words in reply to the remarks of my col-
league. It is true, as has been said, that the
present system has the merit of simplicity.
There has scarcely ever been a question
raised since the system was established in the
city of Baltimore as to the jurisdiction of the
courts, so far as the one comes in conflict or
in contact with the other. The line is drawn
very clearly, distinctly, and positively. That
feature of the system it is certainly desirable,
so far as possible, to retain. But that is the
only recommendation of the present system ;
and I hold that, in view of all the circum-
stances which hang around it, it is not suffi-
cient to retain it, practically denying justice,
as it does, to suitors of the business com-
munity.
Gentlemen have argued this question as if
they supposed this constitution was to be
taken without any regulation or rule of
the courts, but that the three judges were
thrown together in hodge-podge, and out of
that justice was to be administered, if at all, |
in some flap-hazard way. The report ex-
pressly provides that it shall be regulated by
a rule of the court:
"It shall be the right of any party to an
original cause pending in said court, under
such rules and regulations as the court may
prescribe, to require the presence of at least
two of the judges of said court at the trial
thereof."
That was thrown in with the full purpose
of preventing the very evil which my col-
league seems to anticipate, that a man will
watch his time and wait until he discovers
that a full bench of two cannot be had, and
then demand a full bench to try his case.
The rules and regulations are to arrange all
that. They are to be required to make the
demand at a certain time, upon the call of
the docket, or at such time as shall seem to
the court equitable and right, so that it shall
not be made the means of defeating the ends
of justice, and delaying the business of the
court.
It is provided, too, that they are to dis-
tribute and apportion the business between
them. My colleague, who has just taken his
seat, draws a picture of a judge of the criminal
court sitting in equity, or a judge in equity
sitting upon the criminal bench and con-
ducting the powers there. This is all to be
done under a distinct division of the exercise
of the jurisdiction conferred upon the judges.
Mr. STIRLING. Will my colleague allow me
to make a suggestion. There are three judges
upon the bench, and the other two may assign
to the one now in the criminal court duties
in equity and put a new roan in his place on
the criminal bench. So that it is in the
power of one of the present judges, together
with one of the new judges to be elected, to
oust the present occupant of the bench of the
criminal court.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. " If the sky falls we
may catch larks." It is possible that that
judge may die to-morrow, and that we may
have to provide for a vacancy upon that
bench. It is possible that he may become
disqualified, from sickness or otherwise, and
we may have to provide for a special judge;
and I will gay here in passing, that this is
another of the advantages of the system
reported by the committee that it obviates
entirely the necessity for special judges
which we have sometimes had on one or
another of the benches month after month at
an additional expense to the State.
Now, in domestic economy, I grant that it
is sometimes best to decide how much money
we can spend, and then go on and devise
how to make that meet the wants. But 1
submit that in the arrangement of judges
the principle is a bad one to apply. The
first question to be decided is, how can the
ends of justice be obtained. When that
is settled, manage so as to attain the ends of |
