the latter part of it, of the provision in the
present constitution.
Mr. STIRLING. My colleague, the chairman
of the committee (Mr. Stockbridge,) has ob-
jected to the system we have adopted that it
crowds the jurisdiction of the court of com-
mon pleas. The object of this is to give the
legislature power, it the jurisdiction can be
better apportioned among the several courts,
to reapportion it. it can certainly do no harm.
The legislature may take part of the jurisdic-
tion from that court and give it to another, if
they think it necessary.
Mr. MILLER. I should like to learn from
some gentleman what necessity there is for a
new court in Baltimore city. There are four
now. The provision of the old constitution
was for three courts; and this was for a fourth
if three were not sufficient.
Mr. THOMAS. There is no necessity now;
but before the constitution is revised again the
commercial interests of Baltimore may have
so increased that it may become necessary to
have another court,
Mr. STIRLING. It cannot be organized un-
less the general assembly provide for it; and
if there is no necessity for it they certainly
will not do it.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I have no objection at
all to the latter part of the section. The lat-
ter part of it I think is really important, that
there should exist some such power somewhere.
But I do not see the necessity for a provision
to multiply the courts. If it were put in the
alternative that they might establish an addi-
tional court or increase the judicial power of
the existing courts by adding a judge, if they
should find it necessary for the transaction of
the business, I should have no objection what-
ever to the section. It might be decidedly
better than to establish a new court, that two
judges should be placed in charge of an exist-
ing court, with power to apportion their bus-
iness. It seems to me that the multiplicity of
courts covering the same territory is certainly
going to operate very badly indeed. I would
greatly have preferred to see the judicial pow-
er of the city vested in a single court, with
sufficient judicial power, and with a sufficient
number of judges to transact all the business,
I am satisfied that it would work much better
than arbitrarily making each court a Procrus-
tean bed, for one man to fill, who may know
very little about these particular duties, while
you cannot change his jurisdiction from one
court to another. I trust the amendment will
be modified as I have suggested,
Mr, THOMAS. It appears to me a great deal
better to have a multiplicity of courts than a
multiplicity of judges; because, in the first
place, it is more simple and less complex to
have more courts than it is to have more
judges. I am perfectly aware that Baltimore
city does not require any other court or more
judges than it has at the present time. But
we are making this constitution for years to |
come, I hope. We do not know but in the
course of five or six years it may be abso-
lutely necessary for the commerce of Balti-
more to have another court; and it is a great
deal better, if it were necessary, to have
another court rather than to have an increase
of judges in the present courts. I think this
was a wise provision put into the constitution
under which we live; and it was the origin of
one of the most useful courts within the lim-
its of Baltimore city. I think it will be wise
now to give the same discretion to the legisla-
ture. Most certainly, as has been well said by
my colleague (Mr. Stirling, ) if the wants of the
people and the mercantile interests of Balti-
more require it, we ought to have it; and
if they do not, the legislature will not provide
for another court,
Mr. DANIEL, If my colleague (Mr. Stock-
bridge) will prepare an amendment so as to
give the legislature the alternative be has
suggested, I should prefer it to an increase of
the courts, so that the legislature may either
increase the courts or the judges as they think
proper. In the absence of that I shall vote
for the proposition as it is.
Mr. THOMAS, If you have an increase of
the judges, the legislature might go on and
increase the number of judges in every single
court, in all the four courts, which would be
a very heavy expense; whereas if you adopt
this amendment, we can only have one more
court, to be limited to one judge.
The question being taken on the adoption
of the amendment, the result was—ayes 32
noes 14—no quorum voting.
The question being again taken, the result
was—ayes 35, noes 18. The amendment was
accordingly adopted.
The next section was read as follows :
PART VI.
Justices of the Peace.
"Sec. 37. The judges of the circuit courts
shall appoint in each election district of the
several counties composing their respective
circuits, and the judges of the superior court
and of the circuit court of Baltimore city, by
concurrent action, shall appoint in the city of
Baltimore such number of justices of the
peace as the wants and interests of the people
may require. They shall certify their ap-
pointment so made to the governor, by whom
the appointees shall be commissioned as jus-
tices of the peace of the State of Maryland, in
and for——county and city.. The jus-
tices so appointed and commissioned shall be
conservators of the peace, shall bold, their
office for two years, and shall have such juris-
diction, duties and compensation, subject to
such right of appeal as hath been heretofore
exercised or shall be hereafter prescribed by
law."
Mr. AUDOUN submitted the following amend-
ment :
Strike out section 37, and insert :. |
