and what is not. I say that the sooner that can
be decided the better.
I went with the gentleman from Prince
George's in all of his propositions. I was willing
to tax my own people to have his system, which
I thought perfect, though this House voted it
down. I voted against giving this third judge to
Baltimore city, and only upon that ground.
My friend from St. Mary's, convinced me tho-
roughly that this judge was not necessary. He
spoke with a force of argument that wrought
conviction upon my mind, and I wish every man
would speak as he has spoken upon this floor—
to making his points, and when that is done we
get to the end of it. Since then I have convers-
ed with able and distinguished men. I have
now risen to change my opinions, not mitigating
one word the gentleman said.
The question now is, whether Baltimore—the
great city of Baltimore—shall have justice speedi-
ly or tardily administered. I desire the whole
array of the law applied to her case in Chancery.
in common law, and in criminal jurisdiction; and
when I am told by these people from Baltimore
and others, that they think this thing necessary,
I yield my own convictions—I make myself for-
get the power of argument of my friend from
St. Mary's.
Let Baltimore have this court, for it is impor-
tant that there should be quietude in that city.
I was going to divide and subdivide her, had it
not been for the assertion made here that it
would destroy the Constitution. Therefore, they
have cast me from my own vote, and I shall vote
against it now though I regret the necessity of
doing it.
I am willing to give Baltimore every adminis-
trative power necessary to execute all her civil,
her municipal, her local and her criminal juris-
diction—to execute them promptly and readily,
because if there is any one thing in this world
that is important, it is that mobs and excitements
should never occur. I am willing lo give a
great metropolis like Baltimore all the attributes
of power for the enforcement of the laws. She
is a part of Maryland—the centre of Maryland.
I am, therefore, willing to vote one other judge,
and to change my vote.
I voted for striking out the third judge for that
city, convinced by arguments that it was unne-
cessary. I must confess these arguments still
linger upon my brain. When I am told by gen-
tlemen that this thing is necessary, I will yield
up my opinions, and will vote for an additional
judge.
Mr. RANDALL. The district which compre-
hends this county, has been most harshly dealt
with, under the present system, and I claim the
right to express their grievances here. I think
I can satisfy this Convention, that if there has
been adistrict in this State that has been harshly
dealt with, it is this. In the first instance, you
have combined this district of four counties,
when that adjoining, with little more, I believe,
than half the business, consists of two counties.
You have done this too, upon the assumption that
the amount of business now transacted in this dis- |
trict, whereas nearly all its equity causes are
carried into the court of Chancery.
You now propose to abolish the court of Chan-
cery, and thus to throw back upon this district
all the accumulations of chancery business which
are now in the Chancery court, but also require
this one judge to transact hereafter, all the civil,
criminal and equity business of this very large
district.
in regard to the equity jurisdiction in Anne
Arundel, there has not been, since I have been at
the bar, more than one equity cause to my know-
ledge in that court, and that was a cause in
which a relation of the Chancellor was the com-
plainant. There have been an average of from
twelve to twenty equity suits tried from this
county yearly, in the Chancery court, all of which
must hereafter be tried in the County court. So
with regard to Calvert, Montgomery and Howard
counties, a large proportion of their equity busi-
ness is transacted in the court of Chancery, You
have assumed the quantity of business, existing
in this district at this time when the Chancery
court decides most of its equity causes as the
basis on which this district is composed, and then
you propose to abolish that very Chancery court,
whose existence is required to reduce our busi-
ness to the quantity you have assumed.
I believe there is twice the business in Calvert,
Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Howard coun-
ties, than exists in Frederick and Carroll coun-
ties, and yet the former four counties comprise
one district, and the latter two counties another.
I repeat, I have no doubt that suits in this dis-
trict on the several dockets, trials or appearances,
civil or criminal—are double in number, similar
suits in the district composed of Frederick and
Carroll Counties, we certainly have just cause lo
complain of this system.
With regard to Baltimore city, I say that
greater facilities have been afforded her in the
transaction of her business, by this system, than
to our district. In the first instance, you have
given Baltimore city two courts; their judges are
not required to leave that city, not one day is
lost in travelling the district—a very important
item in the consumption of the time of the
judge which has not been noticed either by this
committee, or the Convention, in this district
it will require a judge about one month's travel
to attend four courts, two of law, and two of
equity a year, in each county, which county
courts I understand occupied about seventy days.
Again, you have cut off Howard county and Bal-
timore County from that district. There is a
separate criminal court in Baltimore city, which
greatly facilitates the transaction of business.
Baltimore city has much greater means afforded
it for its judicial business than this district cer-
tainly, and it may be more, than most of the other
district.
This system which you adopted was to be car-
ried throughout the whole State as a separate
county system, in which every in the State was
to have ajudge, and it as a part of that system,
and in proportion to the facilities it afforded to the
whole State, that Baltimore city was to have three |
