will see that every proposition carried yester-
day, was carried by less than 49 votes, if
this rule had been applicable to the second
reading, not a single conclusion would have
been needed during the whole session of the
day. On page 111 is a vote, 31 to 52; but
that proposition was lost. The proposition
which was finally carried received a vote of
44 to 33, a majority of 11 votes, yet wanting
5 votes of being a majority of the members
elected. We cannot expect to have more
members present, for 83 members is above the
average attendance hitherto. At the previous
sessions we have not had as many. The re-
sult will be under the rule, as my colleague
has just remarked, every proposition will be
defeated upon which the political majority
here do not unite. It will be difficult upon
propositions which are out of a general po-
litical character to get 49 votes. At the same
time propositions which command so large a
vote as a majority of the members present,
may be considered as representing the views
of the whole Convention, because it is gener-
ally the fact that the absentees are about
equally divided, and if they were present the
vote would just about preserve the same pro-
portion.
The argument of one of the members from
Prince George's yesterday, was that if any
proposition could not command the vote of a
majority of this whole body, it was pretty
strong proof that it might not go into the
Constitution, for the people will not sanction
it. Now we are placed in this position, that
We are bound to make a Constitution. Everybody
agrees that there must be some judiciary
system. Does the gentleman mean to say
that if no judiciary system can command 49
votes in this Constitution, it is better to have
no judiciary system at all? How will the rule
work with reward to that? One man brings
up one system, another brings up another sys
tem, and another brings up a third. The
majority of the House vote down the first
because part of that majority are in favor of
the second, and part in favor of the third. So
they vote down the second, and the third, be
cause In each case they are divided between
the other two propositions If the majority
can finally agree upon a system, must it be
rejected unless it can command 49 votes? A
great many people think we ought to leave
the Judiciary system to stand precisely as it is
with perhaps a little modification to relieve
the pressure of business upon one or two of
the courts. Yet the present article in this
Constitution could not command 49 votes in
the Convention for two weeks. Or if you
wish to abolish the present system and substitute
another entirely elective, I do not believe
that can command 49 votes upon an average
attendance. I doubt very much whether any
proposition for the establishment of a Judiciary
system can command 49 votes upon an aver
age attendance of this House. We must |
come to some compromise in order to adopt
any system which the majority of the mem-
bers present will accept.
Mr. MARBURY. Does the gentleman mean
to say that if we vote down propositions to
change the article on the Judiciary, or any
other article in the Constitution, it will leave
the State of Maryland without any Judiciary
system in the Constitution ?
Mr. STIRLING. I say that if we vote down
all propositions offered for a Judiciary system,
we shall have no Judiciary system.
Mr. MARBURY. Shall we not in that case
have the present Judiciary system ?
Mr. STIRLING. Certainly not. How can
we? We must incorporate an article in the
new Constitution before it can become a part
of it. There must be an affirmative vote to
incorporate in tine new Constitution an article
of this old Constitution, just as much as to
incorporate an entirely new article. It is a
substantive part of another document, and re-
quires an affirmative vote to make it a sub-
stantive part of this. But as some are In
favor of one system and some of another, it
will be difficult upon an average attendance
to obtain a vote of 49 members in favor of any
system. We might take vote after vote, and
sit here day after day, although a majority of
ten or fifteen had argued upon a proposition
before we could obtain the requisite number.
Take the apportionment question. The
proposition of my friend from Prince George's
(Mr. Clarke) in regard to representation, as
it stands now, will not get 49 voles in this
body, and I doubt whether any apportion-
ment system will get 49 votes in tins body.
One man will object to it because a certain
part of the State gets too much, and will vote
against it for that reason. Members from
that part of the State will vote with him
against it because they think their part of the
State gets too little, and so both sections will
keep on killing everything for the purpose of
getting something better for their respective
sections. So they will go on day after day,
as they did in the last Legislature, whose duty
it was to re adjust the representation. Every-
body agreed that they were bound to re-adjust
it, and yet they could not, get 38 votes for any
system of apportionment which they could de-
vise. There were bills which passed by a large
majority, but none receiving 38 votes. Some
men voted against apportionments upon the
sole ground that they thought some one county
ought to have one more man; and that was
enough to prevent anything being done; and
nothing was done, although it was the duty
of the Legislature to re-adjust the apportion-
ment.
When any article requires compromise and
adjustment, you will have extreme difficulty
in getting 49 votes for it. Yet we must come
to some conclusion. The people of the State
are now getting dissatisfied with the length of
time this Convention has taken up. There |
