The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1874-01-31

pttf anu bhtftiDit tAltttu III htit i4tLlstAtuIt
as Representing the people. The Legislature
has, therefore, all powers except such as are
inhibited to II by the provisions Of the Con
stitution. The Executive and Judicial De-
partments are charged with certain duties, but
the sovereignty resides in the Legislature.
The Legislature has the inherent power iden.
teal as II is in power with the Parliament Of
England to annul contracts. Even were il
not that the Constitution Of the United States
inhibits the supremacy which the Constitution
of our State acknowledges, the Legislature
may tomorrow repeal the provisions of the
Code under which the proceedings in this case
are conducted. Would not then the execu-
| ton Of the sentence of the Court fall? Could
Davis be executed? Certainly not. II the
Legislature, therefore, has this power of re.
peal, then, upon principle, can il be argued
that It cannot modify it, suspend it or legislate
upon 1t, IN any way Il may think proper? He
did not contend that the Legislature had the
power TO strike out the Judgment entered in
| the Davis case and enter another one, but
that 1t had the power to suspend the execu.
ton Of the judgment passed, and could pass
law directing the Courts 10 do another judicial
act. There could be no doubt of the power
OF the Legislature to remit any penalty in.
Cured to the State. There was never a SEES.
sion Of the Legislature in which it was not
called upon to exercise that power The Leg.
stature can do what il pleases with a iudg.
ment given in favor of the State. II can re.
NIT penalty or fine or stay the execution
of Judgment, and is there anything in this
case that takes it beyond such power? He
referred 18th Maryland, page 322, and Sedg.
wick on Constitutional Law, page 1872. There
was no power in our Judiciary inhibiting il
from the exercise of the legislative sovereign
| ty. Our Judicial system was taken from that
of England, whose province was clearly de.
fined as being only the mouthpiece or speaker
Of the law, and had no powers curtailing the
sovereignty Of the law-making power. He
referred to Eleventh State Trials, page l,2l7,
upon this point.
He referred to 18th State Trials again, case
Of Sir Edward Hale, page 1876, quoting from
it in support of his proposition Of the sover.
eighty Of the law.making power over the
Judiciary. He also referred to Broom's case
Of the Seven Bishops, page 465, etc., and 10th
Massachusetts,, page S3l. He then took up
the question as to what were the powers Of
the Judiciary of the State under the State Con.
stitution. He laid down the propositions that
the judiciary derives its judicial power from
the Legislature. 1t derived its tenure Of ex-
istence from the Constitution. He read sew.
eral sections Of articles Of State Constitution
to prove that the powers of the courts pro.
ceeded from the Legislature. He then pro.
ceeded to inquire what prohibitions we're laid
upon the Legislature by the Constitution. If
there were any miseonception as to the pow.
ers Of the Legisl ature it might perhaps arise
from the sth, 9th, 10th, 18th, 18th and S4th
articles Of the Bill of Rights. They were as.
| sertions ofprincipes of liberty directed against
the encroachmsnts of the judicial and execu.
tive powers upon the legislative power, and
sod
power. fanny inhibitions of the powers Of
the Legislature is to be inferred, then the
very reverse supposition is to be taken, which
is that these rights were asserted against the
legislative power which was in direct contra
yention of history. The separation made by
the eighth article did not bear upon this case
The province of the Judiciary was to admins.
ter the law as it finds it. Its province to.
morrow will be to administer the law as il
then finds it, and the Legislature has full pow.
err of operation in the mean time. He here
referred to Broome, page 567, as setting forth
this point. He then took up the thirteenth
article of the Bill Of Rights, which sets forth
the right of petition for the redress of griev.
ances. When citizen was assured q cOnsti
tutional right to petition, he was also thereby
assured a constitutional right to hearing Of
his petition, and an examination Of the griey.
ances set forth
Judge Tuck called Judge Maulsby's atten.
ton to the 3Sd section of article Sd of the
Constitution.
Judge Msulsby contended that this only
applied TO certain special numFrated cases,
and that it had no bearing upon this case
He again reiterated the constitutional right
of investigation into the grievances alleged by
q petitioner. He proceeded to inquire how
the grievances alleged should be examined
into. II should be by inquiring into the facts
and circumstances of the case. Il should be
by all the means of investigation into facts
Under these principles he insisted upon the
right of a petitioner to obtain inquiry into the
facts and circumstances of his case to ascer.
tain whether it is not right and proper to in.
| terfere in his behalf to prevent the execution
OF the sentence passed upon him.
Judge Tuck called his attention to the fact
that what the committee desired was informa.
ton upon what course was proper to it under
the constitutional limitations.
Judge Maulsby then read some remarks
upon this point, arguing that it was competent
for the Legislature 10 order q new trial, or
pass a law to meetthis especial case. In con.
clusion, he claimed the right, az petitioner in
behalf Of his client, TO appear before the com.
mittee when the memorial was considered to
discuss its merits and to bring proof of its oil.
legations.
Mr.. Norment then took the floor. He con.
tended that there was no constitutional power
Of review over the judiciary vested in the Leg.
stature. He referred to the proceeding Of
the Judiciary and executive, as putting the
opposition Of grievances out Of the case. The
committee recalled the speaker TO the ques.
ton of Jurisdiction. The facts were not now
under consideration. For the purposes Of this
inquiry Davis was assumed TO be innocent.
Mr.. Norment then proceeded to argue that
the constitutional provisions for the protec.
ton Of rights by the executive and judiciary
were sufficient, and that thereby the Legisa
ture was estopped from interference. He re.
ferred to 37th Maryland, page 10.
Mr.. Seth made the point that the case re.
ferred was between citizens, and concerned
vested rights, whereas the case before them
was one in which the State was party.
Mr.. Norment commended that the distinction
did not impair the force of the precedent.
The provisions Of the eighth article of the Bill
of Rights ran through all judicial proceedings
He deemed Judge Maulsby's proposition, that
the whole sovereignty of the State was lodged
in the Legislature, to be erroneous. Even il
there should be general enactment abolish.
ing capital punishment, he believed that the
question would have to be adiudicated whether
that could effect case in which the death
penalty had already been pronounced. He
did not believe precedent could be found for
the interference Of the Legislature in such o
case MS the present. He claimed that the whole
spirit and letter Of the Constitution were
against such action. He referred TO Story on
the Constitution, sections 400, 405, 40S and
400, and asked that the rules there laid down
be applied to the present case. He claimed
that the intent OF the Constitution was to
secure to the courts entire Jurisdiction in
criminal cases. If the gate was once opened,
what would be the result? What damage
would be done to society if II was understood
that the Legislature, during its biennial SEES.
sion of ninety days, could take up the decis.
ions Of the courts, legislate upon them, and
modify them Mt pleasure? He felt sure the
committee, comprising, as it did, so many
able lawyers, was perfectly competent to de.
eide upon the point, and in conclusion, left il
in their hands to decide, asking, however,
their attention to the published argument Of
Attorney General syester Upon the conclu.
sion Of Mr. Moments argument the commit.
tee adjourned.