The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1944-11-03
Defend The MARYLAND
Court OF Appeals

The voters of Maryland in the heat
of the Presidential election must not
fail to vote against the ratification OF
the second Constitutional Amendment
to appear on the ballot on November
z, 1914.
This proposed amendment abolishes
the Maryland Court of Appeals and
rcorganizes it as a new court as of
January l, 1916. 1t is step back
ward.
The present Court of Appeals was
established in the present Constitu-
ton of 1867. 1t consists of seven
Chief Judges from the seven County
Circuits, and one Judge from the Bal
timore City, or Eighth Judicial Cir
cult. The new court will ultimately
consist of five appellate judges. This
is accomplished by reducing the seven
County Chief Judges to three appel
late judges and increasing the repre-
sentation of the Baltimore City Cir
cult from one Judge to two judges.
Thus the representation of the County
Circuits on the. Court of Appeals is
decreased 33 1871, while the repre-
sentation of the Baltimore City Cir
cult is increased 1000. Two judges
will be quorum. The judges of the
proposed new court would not be per-
mitted to sit in the trial courts unless
designated by the Chief Judge when
certain conditions exist. The Chief
Judge in the new court will be the ju
dicial car of Maryland. All the City
and County trial judges must report
to him and under certain conditions
he may designate trial judges to sit
in the Court of Appeals and appellate
judges or trial judges from one cir
cult to sit in the trial courts of an
other circuit.
If these revolutionary changes
should be adopted by the people, Chief
Judge Levin Claude Bailey of the First
judicial Circuit, consisting of Wor-
cester, Somerset, Wicomico and Dor
chester Counties, and Chief Judge
Walter C. Capper of the Fourth Ju-
dicial Circuit consisting of Washing
ton, Allegany and Garrett Counties
will not be members of the new court.
These two gentlemen are valuable, in
telligent and able members of the
present Court of Appeals, and their
elimination from the new Court OF
Appeals would be a serious loss to the
efficient work of that court.
The present Court of Appeals has
functioned we'll for the past II years.
Its dockets are up to date. No man
has lost his life, liberty or property
without due process of law by any
decision of the present court. Under
the present system, there is no posi-
bility of packing" the Court of APP
peals-it simply cannot be done.
Against this security in the Mary
land Judicial System, it is proposed to
adopt system which has been tried
twice in Maryland and which did
not work. From 1776 to 1906, there
were 5 judges of the Court of Appeals
doing appellate work only. This plan
failed and was abolished by the people
in 1906. In 1851 similar system was
attempted with A judges doing appel
ate work only. The Court of Appeals
,ot behind in its work and one addi-
tional appellate judge was added in
1864 making a total of 5 appellate
judges. This court of five appellate
Judges continued to get behind in it's
work, and in 1867, there were 1877
cases undecided. To remedy this stu
alton the present Court of Appeals
was established, and as the late Chief
Judge Bond stated in 1910: Sand it
was not long before every case on the
docket of each term was given an OPP
portunity for hearing at that term;
and this has been doaa ever since"
he proposed rev Court CT Appeals
hes fa.led twice in Eal.. land; the
present Court of Appeals has sue
ceeded for n years.
Is it any wonder that the majority
Of the judges in Maryland are OPP
posed to the amendment? ) it any
wonder that no Bar Ass citation has
approved the amendment in its pres
el:t fern; or, that number of Bar
Associations have disapproved it?
Every voter should preserve the in
dependence and integrity of the judi
CARY of Maryland by voting against
the ratification Of this dangerous pro-
posed Constitutional Amendment.