Courts, if the business could he regularly dis-
pitched, and the system would not be too ex-
pensile. It has been my fortune to be a judge
of the Orphans' Court in two counties—first in
Washington, and then in Allegany. I have
frequently been embarrassed in the discharge of
the duties of the office, by the legal questions
which have arisen, and have been compelled to
consult gentlemen of the profession in reference
to the proper decision of those questions. A
difference of opinion between several thus consulted
has greatly increased the embarrassment.
Under the present system, a different practice
prevails in different counties. I will mention a
single fact. In the settlement of estates in
Washington county, where rents pass into the
hands of administrators, the funds are properly
accounted for separately, as belonging to the
estate, and to the heirs; whilst in Allegany
the practice has been to treat accruing rents from
real estate as assets in the hands of the administrator,
and to distribute them among the cred-
itors. These different modes of settling estates,
under the same system, could not have obtained,
if the judges had been educated in the law. My
experience as a judge has satisfied me that the
public interest would be promoted by placing
upon the Orphans' Court bench gentlemen edu-
cated in the law.
The PRESIDENT'S hammer here fell, the hour
having arrived at which the convention had re-
solved to close the debate.
Mr. EGE. I endeavored to obtain the floor,
not with a view of making a speech, but with a
view of giving my ideas in regard to the particu-
lar application—
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is not in
order. The Chair will state to the gentleman
that the convention has adopted a resolution
which precludes further debate, the hour of 12
having arrived.
Mr. WEEMS moved to rescind the order clon-
ing the debate on this subject at twelve o'clock
stating that in his judgment the subject under
consideration was one in which the people of the
State were vitally interested.
The Preaiding Officer (Mr. BUCHANAN) ruled
the motion out of order.
Mr. WEEMS then moved to postpone the or-
der of the day, and the amendments pending, to
enable him to submit his motion.
Mr. HARBINE demanded the yeas and nays on
the motion,
Mr. JOHNSON inquired whether, if the motion
was agreed to, it would not carry the entire bill
with it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER replied in the affirmative.
The yeas and nays were then ordered, and be
ing taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Randall, Kent, Morgan,
Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, John Dennis
Dashiell, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Sprigg, Spencer
and Wright—13.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't. Hope
well, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell
Donaldson. Wells, Sellman, Brent, of Charles
Merrick, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chan- |
dler, Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston,
Crisfield, Hicks, Hodson, Phelps, McCullough,
Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Grason, George,
Dirickson McMaster, Hearn, Fooks. Jacobs,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry. Ma-
graw, Nelson, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood,
of Balt. city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer. Da-
vis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Ege, Shower and Brown—12
So the convention refused to postpone.
The question then recurred on agreeing to the
amendment of Mr. Thomas, on which
Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman,
Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, Brent, of
Charles, Merrick, Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot,
Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Mil-
ler, McLane, Bowie, Grason, George, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Nelson, Thawley, Hard-
castle, Gwinn, Brent, of Balt city, Sherwood,
of Balt. city, Ware Schley, Fiery, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis,
Kilgour, Waters, Slicer, Smith, Shower and
Brown—59.
Negative— Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Chambers,
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Crisfield, McCullough,
Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, Wright, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Magraw,
Stewart, of Caroline, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Holliday, Fitzpatrick, Parke and Ege—25.
So the amendment was adopted,
Mr. MERRICK said that he understood it was
stated, when the amendment first rejected was
moved, that it would be considered as a test
vote, to show the sense of the Convention as to
the question of retaining the office of judge as
it now is. He voted with no such purpose, as
did many gentlemen who were around him.
The said 10th section was then adopted, as
amended.
On motion of Mr. THOMAS,
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the 9th section of the report.
The question pending was on the substitute
offered by Mr. Bowie, for this section of the
report, and the amendment offered by Mr. Cris-
field.
Mr. THOMAS said, that with the permission of
the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield,)
he would move to strike out of the substitute of
that gentleman the word "district," wherever it
occurred and insert in lieu thereof the word
"circuit."
The motion was agreed to.
Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore city, inquired if it
would be in order to move a substitute for this
section ? |
