having been read the third time, was passed
by yeas and nays, as follows :
Yeas—Messrs, Goldsborough, President:
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Carter, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Wash-
ington, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Gal-
loway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
per, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Larsh, McComas, Mullikin, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell,
Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Stirling,
Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd,
Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—47.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Brown, Chambers,
Crawford, Dent, Hollyday, Horsey, Lee, Mar-
bury, Mitchell, Miller, Par-ran—12.
When their names were called,
Mr. CHAMBERS said: So far as I am con-
cerned, I have voted thus far against every
bill; and I shall vote against this, not upon
the ground of opposition to everything that
is done here; but I cannot vote for a judicial
system with a tenure for a term of years. My
opinion is that it ought to be during good
behaviour. Upon that ground I shall vote
" no," although I am glad to see an approach
towards the correct tenure in this report.
Mr. MILLER said: The subject of the judici-
ary has been one in which I have felt more
interest than almost any other question before
this convnetion. I voted against the call of
the convention of 1850, and against the adop-
tion of the present constitution of 1850, be-
cause it changed the judiciary system of the
State from an appointive system with a life
tenure to an elective system for a term of
years. I have had all my life a great and
strong feeling upon that subject, and I never
will vote for an election, or a term of years.
I vote "no."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE said: I must be allowed,
contrary to my usual custom, to say one
word in explanation of my vote upon the
question before the convention. It is very
well known to members that this judiciary
article, as now prepared, is a very different
one from what I had hoped to see adopted by
this convention. I think it defective and
wrong in many respects. But the question is
not what I would like to see it. if that were
the question; if it were a question between
adopting this and something better, I should
most readily vote "no." But the question
is between this and the existing article upon
that subject. I consider the article as now
completed a decided improvement upon the
existing article in many features. I am not
aware that it is worse in any respect. The
features that are most objectionable to me are
similar to those in the present constitution.
On other points I consider it a decided ad-
vance; and I shall therefore vote for the arti-
cle as it stands. I vote "yes."
Mr. VALLIANT said: My explanations have
been frequent here; but I have not troubled
the convention very much with speech making. |
This system is not as I would have it. It
does not meet with my entire approbation;
but as has been remarked by the gentleman
from Baltimore, I believe it is an improvement
upon the old system. I prefer the life tenure;
and I prefer the appointive system; but as
this is a nearer approach to my views than
the old system, I vote for it. I vote "aye."
Mr. BELT said: One single remark. Inas-
much as I misunderstood the effect of the
proposition of my friend from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stockbridge) at the time he offered it a
little while ago, and did not say what I would
like to have said then, I will do it now in ex-
planation, of my vote. There are many ob-
jections to the report on general principles,
and one feature of it is so objectionable to
my people and those of the surrounding coun-
ties that it is impossible for me to vote for the
article with that provision in it. I refer to
the provision in the nineteenth section which
redistricts the lower counties. The proposi-
tion that we have made to the convention
several times, and which I do not think and
am sorry that it has never yet been under-
stood, is to put Prince George's, Charles and
St. Mary's into one circuit, as they are now,
and Calvert, Anne Arundel and Montgomery
into one, relieving them of Howard county
which goes into another circuit,
The immediate effect of it is to save the ex-
pense of one judge, saving one circuit. There
is not one feature of this constitution so pro-
ductive of feelings of regret and sorrow in
those counties, as this arrangement which has
been made for them. We would ten-fold
rather have the three counties in one circuit
than any two of them. As represented upon
this floor, I believe the arrangement is without
a single voice in any of five of the counties.
Five out of the six counties are earnestly in
favor of the old system being re-established.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Cal-
vert (Mr. Parran) objected to the amend-
ment.
Mr. BELT. I speak of the other five conn-
ties. The sixth, Calvert, which here opposes
the re-establishment, is the smallest county of
the whole six. As to the practical question,
the reason for my vote, it is this. We made
a proposition with almost the universal assent
of the people of six counties, to be re-estab-
ished in our old relations, and to save the
State one judge and one circuit; and we are
refused so reasonable a proposition as that. 1
am therefore compelled to vote "no.".
The report on the judiciary department, as
amended, was accordingly passed.
USURY.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I now move to take up
the usury report, our last report. I have no
objection to taking a recess when that is taken
up; but I want gentlemen to understand that
it is to come up this evening.
The motion was agreed to. |
