of testamentary capacity, of the legal or illegal
execution of wills, &c. This always leads to
an appeal, where the estate is of sufficient value
to justify it.
Now, sir, I do not agree with gentlemen who
think that if you confer these powers upon the
judges of the county courts, it will take one judge
for each county. It would in some counties, but
in some it would not. The question would arise
whether the judge living in one county could
transact orphans' court business in another.
How do you propose to get rid of that? By a point
of law, a vague clothing of the Register of Wills
with the authority he now exercises in most of
the courts of the State. I do not believe it is
hazarding a great deal to say that one-half of
the orphans' courts in Maryland never read a
testamentary system from beginning to end. I
heard one of them boast that he never had read
it, and did not mean to read it. He wanted
nothing at all to do with books in his court.
Could such a gentleman as that decide properly
questions of meum and tuum in any court?
Again, in some of the counties, two are uni-
ted in one district, and yet one judge cannot at-
tend to both. How is it now? Does not the
judge residing in this city go up to Carroll
county? Do not the judges of the county courts
have occasion to attend at other courts? We
have in Prince George's county monthly terms
of the orphans' court. So it is in Calvert coun-
ty, instead of monthly, could you not have quar-
terly terms? Would not that be enough, giving
to the Register of Wills power to do a great
many things which the orphans' court judges
now do sitting upon the bench? You have al-
ready said that where the amount is under $50,
the Register of Wills shall determine it; while
upon a sum over that amount the court shall
decide. That is the most they have to do out
of term time. They are allowed to state ac-
counts preparatory to the session of the court.
Once in three months would be enough for the
orphans' court to meet, if it was generally
known that the judge would be at the place at
the stated time, and would remain there until
all the business before the court was settled.
These are my reasons for voting against the
motion made by the honorable gentleman from
Frederick, (Mr. Thomas.)
Mr. BOWIE. I agree perfectly with the views of
my colleague (Mr. Tuck) in reference to the duty
of this Convention to incorporate into its consti-
tution some provision in reference to the powers
of the orphans' court. If there is an evil to
which we are subjected more intolerable than
any other, it is the peculiar nature of the juris-
diction belonging to the orphans' court. It is
not a final jurisdiction. Although the law pro-
fesses to give them entire and full jurisdiction
over the subject matter committed to them, yet
by some means or other, the law of the land, as
it has been expounded by the court of appeals,
has said that there judgments are but prima facie.
When we come to look at the original act of
Assembly incorporating this court, they seem to
have a jurisdiction as full and complete and
ample over the subject matter confided to them, |
as if they were a court of general jurisdiction;
and yet the court of appeals have held that from
the day they were created to this time, their
judgments were only prima facie. This is an
intolerable evil; but we can remedy it. it is in
our power to rectify it; and when we come to
that provision in the constitution which pro-
poses to engraft upon it an orphans' court sys-
tem, my friend and myself will be found together
in establishing such a principle that the decis-
ions of that court shall be final, subject only to
the right of appeal. As this Convention have
already determined that they will not give a
judge to each county, the propriety of giving
the judge orphans' court jurisdiction in the seve-
ral counties. The very same motive which in-
duced me originally to give my vote for a court
in each county, will induce me, at all events, to
oppose the adoption of a system of orphans'
courts, which will require the same judge to
preside over different counties. If there be a
court which is peculiarly local in its character,
it is the orphans' court; and it has therefore
stronger claims to be confined within county
limits than the county court itself. I am, there-
fore, in favor of giving full jurisdiction to the
orphans' court upon all subjects committed to
it, and that its judgments and decrees may be
final, subject in all cases to be reviewed on appeal
to the court of appeals.
Mr. BROWN, it appears to me that the argu-
ment 'in reference to employing lawyers in the
orphans' court is not a sound one. The expe-
rience of us all is that wherever there is a court
of law, with lawyers upon the bench, there are
always lawyers employed upon both sides of the
case. It sometimes happens that lawyers are
employed in the orphans' court, but a large
number of cases in my county are settled with-
out lawyers, and to the entire satisfaction of all
the parties concerned. There is another diffi-
culty. You propose to connect orphans' court
jurisdiction with common law jurisdiction.
Suppose that you bring your case before judge
A of the orphans' court, do you appeal to judge
A of the county court.? I undertake to say that
there are five cases of appeal from the county
court to the court of appeals, where there is one
from the orphans' court.
Mr. BRENT. I only propose very briefly to
state the objects I shall have in view in voting
upon these questions. In the first place, I wish
to retain the orphans' courts as they are, re-
ducing the number of judges. I think one judge
is better than three. I believe the responsibility
being upon one man, the duties will be better
executed than when they are confided to three.
That has always been my opinion, and experi-
ence and observation prove the fact. I must
vindicate the orphans' court from the imputa-
tion of the gentleman from Prince George's,
who says that the court of appeals of Maryland
has decided that their judgments are merely
prima facie. I beg leave to differ from my friend..
I will say that the decisions of that court are
just as conclusive and binding as the decisions.
of the court of appeals itself within its own ju-
risdiction. The court of appeals have said that |
