Mr. MULLIKIN. That will admit colored Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Well, if a colored man chooses to try his own case, let him do so; I see no objection to that. dollars, or something of that kind, he may perhaps be able to do it from the code. I, how-people to practice. ever, once knew a justice of the peace, who accepted the office, when appointed to it, for fear the governor might consider it discourteous in him to refuse. He was called upon to draw a deed, which he did, following the old forms of 1805; but when he came to the description, he copied so literally that it read "beginning at a stone and going to the end of the description," and that is so record-son to practice law in all the courts of the ed to this day in Somerset county. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. So far as the members of our profession are concerned, if we looked alone to our interests, we would greatly prefer to have incorporated into the constitution a provision allowing every perState in his own case. It has been my expeMr. SCHLEY. This section was amended rience in the practice of law, that those who yesterday before it was struck out, by strik- have no practical knowledge of the law have ing out the words "of good moral character, been the means of making more law-suits being a voter.” The action of the convention than there would have been without their astherefore has been had upon the words "be-sistance. I know various cases arising in ing a voter." Is it competent now for the gentleman from Talbot (Mr. Mullikin) to offer an amendment to the section including those words? Mr. РUGH. The action of the convention of last night has been reconsidered. The PRESIDENT. If a proposition is reconsidered, everything in connection with the proposition is also reconsidered, and the whole subject is opened up again. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The words "of good moral character, being a voter," were stricken out of the section last night. What was left then was the following: 'Every person shall be admitted to prac tice law in all the courts of this State, in his own case." Now, having voted to reconsider the vote by which the entire section as amended was stricken out, is not the question again upon the motion to strike out the section? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Talbot (Mr. Mullikin) has moved an amendment to the section, in the nature of a substitute. เ Mr. NEGLEY. Which substitute is he same as the section stands amended, with the exception of the words "being a voter." our county: I call to mind now one in particular, a criminal case, where the party attempted to defend himself. The jury found him guilty without leaving the jury-box, though it was the opinion of every member there that if he had had a professional man to defend him he would have been acquitted. There was another case of assault and battery, with which there was no aggravating circumstances connected. The party undertook to defend himself, and was found guilty and fined three hundred dollars. deal better for our profession, if we look at it It has been my experience that it is a great in that light, to let every man practice law, for they make more law-suits. We have found the old adage true, "that he who tries his own case, has a fool for a client." Now I came here to try and make an or ganic law that would meet the wants of the people of the State for all time to come. I did not want them to have another constitutional convention called within my lifetime.— But my opinion has now very much changed -I want to see another constitutional convention in this hall in less than three months. And if it could be done, I would have every one of the majority here turned out and what Mr. DENT. According to my understand- I consider better men politically, put in their ing the last vote upon the section yesterday places. I am here to do my duty to my conwas upon the motion to strike out the sec-stituents, and that I intend to try to do in tion. That vote is the one which has been reconsidered this morning. And after that reconsideration, the motion to strike out the section is again before the convention. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Talbot in lieu of the section that had been stricken out proposes another section, to which the gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Parran) moves an amendment, to insert the words "in this State," after the words "being a voter." The first question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Calvert Mr. MULLIKIN. I will accept that amend ment. The question was upon the substitute as modified. Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I move to strike out the words "being a voter." my own way. I am here to try if I can to get a perfect organic law for the people of this State, and therefore I am prompted by no desire to put in any provision which will assist my profession, or any other profession. Now, individually, I have no objection to this section. But let me ask if it is better to allow every citizen to practice in his own case, however inexperienced in the practice of law he may be, and however little knowledge he may have of it? I say that the citizen is much better off when he gets a professional adviser and gives him a fee to try his case. If the majority of this convention desire to have this section incorporated into the constitution, I want them to understand that I vote against it only because I think our citizens generally would be benefited by not having it in the constitution. Under the laws of Maryland, any man in the State can practice medicine and charge for it. But would any man nota physician, among those members of this convention who favor the adoption of this section, attempt to treat a bad case of disease, or to give a diagnosis of it? While I have seen a man try his own cases in the courts, I have never in my life seen a man, not a physician, employed by his neighbors to treat diseases. Now any man in the community is as capable of forming a diagnosis of the most obscure case known to medicine, as he is, uninformed and unpracticed in the law, to go to your court house and try a legal case before the court and jury. I shall vote, therefore, against retaining this provision in the constitution, because I think to do so would be doing our citizens an injustice. Not that I think that keeping this section out would benefit my profession at all; for I believe it would be a greater benefit to the profession to permit every man to practice. The question was upon the motion of Mr. JONES, of Somerset, to strike out the words "being a voter. Upon this question, Mr. JONES, of Somerset, called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 14, nays 58-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Chambers, Crawford, Daniel, Dennis, Edelen, Hatch, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset, Lansdale, McComas, Mitchell, Murray, Schley, Stockbridge-14. Noys-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Brooks, Brown, Carter, Clarke, Cunningham, Davis, of Charles, Davis, of Washington, Dent, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Gale, Galloway, Hebb, Hodson, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Kennard, King, Lee, Mace, Marbury, Markey, Mayhugh, Morgan, Mullikin, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of Worcester, Stirling, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Todd, Turner, Wickard, Wooden-58. The amendment was accordingly rejected. Mr. DANIEL, when bis name was called, said: I shall vote for this, for I can see no reason why a man twenty-one years old should be allowed to defend his own case, and not a man who is twenty years and eleven months old. Mr THRUSTON, when his name was called, said: Inasmuch as this amendment if adopted would permit citizens of other States to practice law in this State in their own cases, I must vote against it. Mr. CHAMBERS submitted the following amendment: Strike out the words "admitted to practice law," and insert the words "permitted to appear and try his own case," and strike out the words, in the last line, "in his own case." Mr. CHAMBERS said: I have made a business of the practice of the law in my State from the year 1805 up to the 18th of August, 1864; and I think it is entitled to some respect at the hands of this convention when I say that a man who knows nothing of the You law cannot be admitted to practice it. may pass an ordinance or a constitutional provision, but you cannot enable a man who is fool enough to go into court to try his own case, not being a lawyer, to practice law. It would be a libel upon the profession, were we to assert such a thing. The amendment was agreed to-ayes 44, nays 14. The question was stated upon the motion to strike out the section. Mr. CHAMBERS. I rise to excuse myself from voting to accomplish an 'object I have no desire to accomplish. By common law every man has a right to appear and try his own case. Gentlemen seem to think that they are conferring a privilege upon a particular class of persons. That is altogether a mistake. This is restricting a right which they already have. I vote against it because it restricts the right of the voter coming into the State, and having all the qualifications except residence. A man coming here from Massachusetts, although he may be a lawyer, cannot be admitted to try his own case unless he comes to the bar and qualifies. But another man alongside of him, with no pretensions of law, because he is a voter can try his own case. I do not see the necessity of restricting the privilege. Any man has a right to spend his own time and money foolishly; to employ his time, talents, money, reputation, as he pleases, provided he does not injure his neighbor by it. Why then restrain him? The inference would be from inserting such a clause that this class of persons is to be prohibited. I do not want them prohibited. I think it is an invidious distinction between persons who stand in this respect in the same category. When a man has just come into the State or into the county, I do not see why he should not be as much as any other man in the State, permitted to try his own case. I shall vote against the insertion of such a clause. Mr. NEGLEY. What will be the effect of striking out the entire section? After that vole The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Talbot moved to reconsider the vote by which this section was stricken out. had been reconsidered, the gentleman from Talbot moved a proposition which the house. has been perfecting. After they have perfected it the convention must go back to the motion to strike out. Mr. NEGLEY. And in order to get this proposition in the house must strike out the original? The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. The motion to strike out prevailed. The PRESIDENT. The question recurs upon the substitute submitted by the gentleman from Talbot (Mr. Mullikin) as amended. When their names were called, Mr SCHLEY said: For the same reason I voted for striking out yesterday, I vote "no." Mr. STIRLING said: I do not know that this section can practically give any rights a man cannot exercise now; and I think it is only calculated to produce confusion, and perhaps Mr. THRUSTON. I move to strike out restrict some rights. I therefore vote "no." "voter in this State" and insert "citizen of Mr BROOKS Said: Under the explanation of the United States;" because the constitution the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirof the United States requires that "the citi-ling,) I will change my vote and vote "no." zens of each State shall be entitled to all the The section was accordingly adopted as privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States'' [art. 4, sec. 2,] and I do not want to have our constitution at variance with the constitution of the United States in any way. Mr. NEGLEY. I think that is an edge tool that will cut two ways. It is competent to allow a man who has not been naturalized to vote for State officers; yet he could not vote for United States officers. Mr. THRUSTON. It is not competent to give a privilege to citizens of Maryland in a suit at law, that citizens of other States have not a right to. I do not want to have a useless conflict between our own constitution and the constitution of the United States, because our constitution must give way to the constitution of the United States. That is the reason for my motion. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. NEGLEY. I move the following amendment, being section 31 of the article in our present constitution : "Every person of good moral character, being a voter, shall be admitted to practice law in all the courts of law in this State, in his own case." The PRESIDENT ruled the amendment out of order, having already been acted upon. Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the section as amended, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result was yeas 40, nays 32-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Brown, Crawford, Cunningham, Daniel, Davis, of Charles, Davis, of Washington, Dennis, Duvall, Ecker, Galloway, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, King, Lansdale, Markey, Mayhugh, McComas, Mullikin, Negley, Nyman, Robinette, Sands, Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of Worcester, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Wickard-40. follows: "Sec. 11. Every person, being a citizen of the United States, shall be permitted to appear and try his own case." The next section was read as follows: PART II. Court of Appeals. "Sec. 12. The court of appeals shall consist of a chief justice and four associate justices, and for their selection the State shall be divided into five judicial districts as follows, viz: Worcester, Somerset, Dorchester, Talbot, Caroline, Queen Anne, Kent and Cecil counties, shall compose the first district; Harford and Baltimore counties, and the first seven wards of Baltimore city, shall compose the second district; Baltimore city, except the first seven wards, shall compose the third district; Allegany, Washington, Frederick, Howard and Carroll counties, shall compose the fourth district; St. Mary's, Charles, Anne Arundel, Calvert, Prince George's and Montgomery counties, shall compose the fifth district; and one of the judges of the court of appeals shall be appointed from each of said districts." Mr. ABBOTT. I move to strike out "appointed" and insert "elected" in the last line. Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I would suggest to the gentleman to insert "by the qualified voters in each of the said judicial districts." Mr. STIRLING. It would be better to take the vote first upon the amendment as offered, and afterwards upon the mode of election. Mr. SANDS. That can be provided for by inserting in line two, after the words " associate justices" the words "to be elected on general ticket by the qualified voters of the State." Mr. SCHLEY. I give notice that I will move to amend by inserting "to be elected by the qualified voters of the State" in the second line, and to strike out the last clause, and let the justices be elected from the State at large. Nays Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Brooks, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Mr. DENT. I'will move to amend by addDent, Earle, Edelen, Hatch, Jones, of Cecil,ing at the end of the section, "by the qualiLee, Mace, Marbury, Mitchell, Morgan, Mur-fied voters thereof." ray, Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Mr. THOMAS. I give notice that at the Russell, Schley, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, proper time I shall offer a substitute for the Todd, Turner, Wooden-32. whole section. Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays) the second; Baltimore city the third; and upon Mr. ABBOTT's amendment, and they were ordered.. The question being taken, the result was yeas 42, nays 19-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Crawford, Davis, of Washington, Dennis, Dent, Duvall, Ecker, Edelen, Gale, Galloway, Hatch, Hopkins, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, King, Lee, Marbury, Mayhugh, McComas, Mitchell, Morgan, Murray, Negley, Parran, Purnell, Robinette, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Thomas, Turner, Wickard, Wooden-42. Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Daniel, Earle, Hebb, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Lansdale, Mullikin, Parker, Peter, Russell, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thruston-19. When their names were called Mr. CLARKE said: I was not here when the former vote was taken. I am in favor of the court of appeals being appointed, and the circuit judges being elected. I therefore vote "no." Add at the end of the section "by the qualified voters thereof." Mr. THRUSTON submitted the following amendment to the amendment: Strike out the word "thereof," in the last line, and insert the words "of the whole State." Mг. THOMAS submitted the following amendment: Strike out all after the word "The," in the first line and insert the following: Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's, Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester, Somerset and Worcester, shall compose the fourth district; and the chief justice shall be elected by the qualified voters of the counties and the city of Baltimore on a general ticket. "And one person from among those learned in the law, having been admitted to practice law in this State, and who shall have been a citizen of this State at least five years, and above the age of thirty years at the time of his election, and a resident of the judicial: district, or if chief justice a resident of the State as herein provided, shall be elected from each of said districts and the State, by the legal and qualified voters therein as a judge of said court of appeals, who shall hold his office for the term of fifteen years from the time of his election or until he shall have attained the age of seventy years, whichever may first happen, and be re-eligible thereto until he shall have attained the age of seventy years, and not after, subject to removal for incompetency, wilful neglect of duty or misbehavior in office, on conviction in a court of law, or by the governor upon the address of the general assembly, two-thirds of the members of each house concurring in such address, and the salary of each of the judges of the court of appeals, shall be four thousand dollars ($4,000) annually, and shall not be increased or diminished during their continuance in office, and no fees or perquisites of any kind shall be allowed by law to any of the said judges." The question was stated upon Mr. THRUSTON's amendment to the amendment. Mr. THRUSTON. The effect of my amendment is that the judges of the court of appeals will be elected by general ticket. Mr. DENT. The object of the amendment I proposed was this: Since it had been determined by the convention that the judges of the court of appeals should be elected, I wished to provide that it should be by the voters of the district from which they should be elected. It seems to me much more proper that they should be elected by the voters of the district from which they are to be elected, than that they should be elected by general ticket, as proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Thruston.) The question is simple and plain between the two, and it is unnecessary to make any extended remarks upon it. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I object both to the amendment offered by the gentle"The court of appeals shall consist of a man from Allegany (Mr. Thruston,) and to chief justice and four associate justices, ant that offered by the gentleman from Baltimore for their selection the State shall be divided city (Mr. Thomas.) My objection to the into four judicial districts. Allegany, Wash-amendment offered by the gentleman from ington, Frederick, Carroll, Baltimore and Allegany is this; that it proposes that the Harford counties, shall compose the first; judges of the court of appeals shall all be Montgomery, Howard, Anne Arundel, Cal-elected by general ticket. Under the present vert, St. Mary's, Charles and Prince George's, constitution the members of the court of appeals are elected by the qualified voters of the several districts from which they come. There are many reasons why I think that. under that system we can get a better man for the court of appeals than by a general vote of the whole State. I must confess, although a member of the bar, that if I were called upon to vote for the most competent man in the particular district represented in part by the gentleman from Allegany, I should not be half as comI should not be half as competent to judge who was the most fit person to sit upon the bench of the court of appeals, as the gentlemen who reside there. The same principle would apply to being called upon to vote for a member of the court of appeals from our section of the State. I am familiar with all the members of the bar in our section of the State. I know their standing at the bar, and their legal attainments, and therefore I should be better able to judge who would be most competent in my section of the State to sit upon the bench of the court of appeals than the gentleman from Allegany. I therefore prefer the provision of the present constitution. Let gentlemen think of it for a moment, and ask themselves how we can obtain the services of the best men to sit upon the bench of the court of appeals. As a matter of course we must know the men from whom we make the selection; and, although a member of the bar, I must say that I do not know personally who would be best suited for that place in the section of the State represented by the gentleman; and I take it for granted that the same remark will apply to him. Therefore there is manifest wisdom in adhering to the present system. Let each district elect a judge of the court of appeals by the qualified voters of the district. We then have the assurance that we shall get good men upon the bench, and I am sure it is the desire of every one present that that should be accomplished. I think that this is reason enough why every member of the convention should vote to allow them to be elected by the qualified voters of the district from which they come, according to the provision of the old constitution. Mr. STIRLING. I hope very sincerely that the amendment of the gentleman from Allegany will prevail. It strikes me that there is a manifest propriety in this mode of electing the judges. I was very much struck yesterday with the remarks made incidentally by my friend from Washington (Mr. Negley) with regard to this subject. It is a fact that the judges of the court of appeals represent the justice of the whole State. Under the old system they were appointed by the governor who represented the whole people. The judge of each judicial distrcit represents the people of that district, but the judges of the court of appeals are obliged to decide cases which come up from every portion of the State. | Will the Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? The appointment having been made under the old system by the governor of the State, was it not the uniform practice for the governor in the appointment thus made to require recommendations from the members of the bar from the section of the State from which the judge was appointed? That Mr. STIRLING. I suppose it was. was the mere ascertainment of his fitness for the office. Every citizen of the State has an interest in every judge of the court of appeals, and he has just as much right to vote for him as to vote for the governor of the State. They equally exercise a general authority over the whole State. So far as regards the selection of a proper man, I believe that the State convention of any political party will in every instance nominate a better man upon the State ticket than would be nominated upon a district ticket. In the first place, candidates are selected with more care by the members of nominating conventions. They come together from all parts of the State, and there are more men among them acquainted with the qualifications of members of the bar.Not only that, but they have an interest in putting on their ticket their strongest man because it has an effect upon the strength of the rest of their ticket. It is a positive fact, so far as I have had an opportunity of hearing about it, that the judges of the supreme court in New York State have been less influenced by politics and have been more able men than those of any other courts of the State; and I believe this is largely attributable to the fact, that while the district judges are elected by the vote of the districts, the judges of the court of appeals are elected by a general vote of the State, and both political parties. have taken pains to keep their ablest men for the court of appeals. We all know that when the question of the constitutionality of the legal-tender law came before that court, Judge Denis gave a dissenting opinion against the law, and yet his character was such that when his party came to nominate a justice of the court of appeals for the next term they unanimously gave him a renomination. I rather think that if he had been required to be nominated by a district convention political prejudice would have absolutely turned him off the bench, because he decided contrary to the political feeling of the party. There is less liability of political feeling being excited against a judge for deciding contrary to the prejudices of a particular district than when the election is by general ticket. The individual citizen is very often brought before the court in antagonism with the people, and the judges under the elective system are sometimes inclined to represent the people against the in |