shall reach the 24th article, I shall move to
strike out that article.
Mr. MILLER. I do not see the necessity of
altering this provision in the bill of rights
The 15th article relates to the power of the
Legislature; it is a prohibition on the power
of the Legislature to pass any law inflicting
cruel and unusual pains and punishments,
and penalties. That, it seems to me, is a
very appropriate provision, directed against
undue exercise of authority in this respect by
the legislative department of the Government
The 24th article relates to the administration
of justice by the Courts of Law. it is well
known to gentlemen here, to the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge) that
the common law prevails in this State, in
pursuance of an article adopted in the bill of
rights. Under that common law, the Courts,
when the party is convicted of any offence,
for which no penalty is prescribed by statute,
have the power', in their discretion, of in-
flicting fines, penalties or imprisonment; and
this 24th article is directed against undue ex-
ercise by the courts of the power they thus
have entrusted to them by the common law.
When the statutes define the penalty and pre
scribe the punishment for any offence, then
no Court of Law can exceed it in according
the punishment for the offence, And the 24th
article is designed to prevent the Courts of
Justice from inflicting unusual and cruel pun-
ishments in cases where the punishment is
left entirely to their discretion: and that I
think is a good provision. And as these two
articles relate to different subjects-matter, I
think they should continue as separate and
distinct provisions in the bill of rights. The
one prohibiting the passage by the Legis-
lature of an act which would warrant a Court
of Justice in inflicting cruel and unusual
pains and penalties, and the other providing
that, in cases where the common law pre-
vails, no such cruel or unusual punishments
should be inflicted at the arbitrary will of the
Judge, or in the mere discretion of the Court.
The combination of the two, proposed by the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stock-
bridge) leaves out, it seems to me, that part
of the 15th article which provides that no
cruel and unusual pain or penalty ought to
be made in any case or at any time hereafter.
Now unless there is some good reason why
the two articles should be so combined, I
cannot see the propriety of altering this ar-
ticle in this respect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think there is a great
deal of sound sense in what has been said by
the gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr.
Miller.) I had hoped it would halve induced
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stock-
bridge) to withdraw his proposition. So far
as I understand it, his proposition will but
save a half-a-dozen words, and the cost of
printing and paper to that extent, while it
disfigures the symmetry, and I think, too, the |
substance of this provision. As has been
said, if gentlemen will look to the two articles
referred to, they will find that they refer
to two different departments of the Government,
the one toeing a direction to the Legis-
lature. and the other a direction to the Courts
themselves. By putting the two articles to-
gether, there would seem to be no restraint
upon the administration of justice such as the
24th article intends to declare, I hope my
friend will see the propriety of withdrawing
his proposition, which only saves a half-a-
dozen words, at the expense of a very sound
principle in the bill of rights,
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I should be very sorry
to deprive this bill of rights of any sound
sense there may be in it. But I am not per-
suaded that it is not best to make the amend-
ment I have proposed. As I said in the out-
set, however, I consider it more a matter of
form than substance, and I would not have
offered it at all if I had supposed it would
have taken up any of the time of the Con-
vention. Now the purpose of this bill of
rights is to declare the rights of the people,
and this section means only that they shall
be exempt from all cruel punishments and ex-
cessive bail, and nothing more, and that prin-
ciple instead of being incorporated in one sec-
tion is embodied in two sections, one restrain-
ing the legislative department, and the other
restraining the judiciary, when they could as
well halve been embraced in one. There would
be just as much propriety in adding another
section to restrain the executive department,
and so on for every other officer of the gov-
ernment. My object was simply to consolidate
these two articles, and make one general de-
claration that the people shall be protected
against all unusual and cruel pains and pen-
alties, Neither the one or the other article
amount to much, but as it has been thought
best to have this principle asserted, for what-
ever it may be worth, I thought it best to
have it all in one article. However, I am not
strenuous on the point.
Mr. SANDS. I propose to offer an amend-
ment to tine amendment, which I think will
avoid all difficulty. I think there is some
force in the objection that the amendment
leaves out something contained in these two
articles. But I can see no reason why the
bill of rights should be cumbered with two
articles when one can be made amply suffi-
cient. I move the following as an addition :
—"and excessive bail ought not to be re-
quired, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
or unusual punishment inflicted by the courts
of law."
The article if so amended will read :
"That sanguinary laws ought to beavoided
as far as it is consistent with the safety of the
State; and no law to inflict cruel and unusual
pains and penalties ought to be made in any
case or at any time hereafter; and excessive
oath ought not to be required, nor excessive |
