orphans' court unless he be a citizen of the
United States, and resident for twelve months
in the city or county for which he may be
elected at the time of his election; each of
said judges shall receive such compensation
as is now or may hereafter be fixed by the
general assembly, to be paid by the said coun-
ties and city respectively."
The amendment was agreed to, by unani-
mous consent.
On motion of Mr. STIRLING, and by unani-
mous consent,
The words ''at the time of his election"
were inserted next after the words " unless he
be" in the fourteenth line.
DETENTION IN SLAVERY.
The thirty-first section having been read, as
follows;
"Section 31. Any person who shall, after
this constitution shall have gone into effect,
detain in slavery any person so emancipated
by the provisions of this constitution shall,
on conviction, be fined not less than five hun-
dred dollars, nor more than five thousand dol-
lars, or be imprisoned not more than five years;
and any of the judges of this State shall dis-
charge, on habeas corpus, any person so de-
tained in slavery; "
On motion of Mr. STIRLING, and by unani-
mous consent,
The word " so " was stricken oat in the sec-.
ond line,
Mr. MILLER. I was not here at the time
this provision was adopted, and I move that
the report be opened for the purpose of en-
abling me to move to strike out this section.
It must be acknowledged that after we have
declared that slavery or involuntary servitude
shall no longer exist in the Static, there can
be no such thing as detaining any emancipa-
ted slave in slavery. It seems to me a con-
tradiction in terms, and rather mars the sym-
metry of this great work in the estimation of
gentlemen, to say that a man can be detained
in slavery after you have said that slavery
shall not exist,
Mr. STIRLING, A man is detained in slavery
who is taken by a slave ship, and he might
escape punishment, although it is piracy by the
laws of the country,
Mr. MILLER. The laws of the United States
provide for that.
Mr. BELT. I trust that my friend from Anne
Arundel (.Mr. Miller) will withdraw his mo-
tion. I desire to vote for that section, taking
it as a recognition of slavery.
Mr. PUGH. I bale no objection whatever to
all the comfort there is in it being adminis-
tered to the gentleman.
The motion was rejected.
SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY.
The thirty-fourth section having been read
as follows:
"Section 34, The superior court of Balti- |
more city shall have jurisdiction over all suits
where the debt or damage claimed, exclusive
of interest, shall exceed the sum of one thousand
dollars, and in case any plaintiff or plain-
tiffs shall recover less than the sum or value
of one thousand dollars, he or they shall be
allowed or adjudged to pay costs in the dis-
cretion of the court. The said court shall also
have jurisdiction as a court of equity within
the limits of the said city, and in all other
civil cases which are not hereinafter assigned
to the court of common pleas, and shall also
have jurisdiction in all cases of appeals from
the commissioner for opening streets; provi-
ded all cases now pending on the law side of
said court, where the debt or damage claimed is
less than one thousand dollars, shall be pros-
ecuted to final judgment in said court, as
though its jurisdiction had not been changed;"
Mr CHAMBERS said; I would ask why the
provision is made that the principal, rather
than the principal and interest, shall exceed
the sum of one thousand dollars. By this
provision a verdict of one thousand dollars
and interest could not be entered; and I do
not see why the interest, every dollar of it,
is not as important to the plaintiff as the prin-
cipal. If the debt amounts to more than one
thousand dollars, I do not see why it may not
as well be interest as anything else. The value
consists in the sum of money due. I would
suggest that the words "exclusive of inter-
est" b" stricken out.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. These words were put in
for the reason that in many cases where the
time was a little uncertain, the mere matter
of interest would change the jurisdiction;
and there have been cases where persons have
been thrown in costs because the jury took a
certain view as to the point of time from.
which interest could be properly claimed, it
was thought more safe for suitors that the
matter of interest should not be included in
the sunn determining the jurisdiction • and.
these words were inserted to avoid that prac-
tical difficulty.
Mr. CHAMBERS. In an action the party plain-
tiff claims that his principal amounts to one
thousand dollars, and the case is tried before
a jury, and they bring in a verdict of eleven
hundred dollars. You cannot tell how much
is principal and how much is interest. They
consolidate it. The law requires them to
bring in the aggregate amount. Then the
question must beopened before the court to
decide that. It strikes me that where a party
can recover more than one thousand dollars,.
he should be heard in the superior court, no
matter whether it is principal or. principal and
interest. So before a justice of the peace a
main may claim ninety-nine dollars principal
and ninety-nine dollars interest. The law
does not allow the justice of the peace to de-
cide upon a claim amounting in the aggregate
to more than one hundred dollars.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. There have been all sorts. |
