|
|
|
Baltimore, a paper which represented more than any
other press that he knew the popular sentiment, that the
people would not hesitate to give good and fair salaries
for the purpose of securing the services of good and com-
petent men on the bench. The Convention in following
the suggestion of this paper need not fear that they were
deviating from the views of the people.
Mr. Stoddert said justice was now sold in the counties
of the State. There was no commodity in the commer-
cial market which was dearer to the poor man than jus-
tice. Fees had increased five hundred per cent, since he
came to the bar.
Mr. Wallace took the floor in reply to the argument of
Mr. Archer in favor of the one-judge system, and denied
that the three-judge system was an experiment. The
people of Maryland had been accustomed to it for forty
years, and he had never, until on this floor, heard one
word against it. The proclamation put forth by the nine-
teen made no charges or complaints against the compo-
sition of that system. All that they complained of in re-
gard to it was the life tenure. The system advocated by
the gentleman from Harford had been tried from 1851 to
the present time. How had it worked ? Go into the city
of Baltimore, the western part of the State, and the East-
ern Shore, and hear the clamor that comes from both bar
and people against its continuance. The old Court of Ap-
peals had worked well, and its decisions were more quoted
than those of any other tribunal in the land.
Mr. Nelson said that on returning to his home a few
days since he had tested the sense of the people as to
this matter, and the universal reply to his question had
been that they wanted the three-judge system. They
were tired of the one judge, and on this point they were
almost unanimous, but not one word had been said as to
the expense. The other point on which the people were
united was the retention of the Orphans' Courts as at
present constituted.
Mr. Archer contended that only under the minority re-
port could the present Orphans' Court system be retained,
as the expense under the other system would be too great.
Under the one-judge system the cost would be $97, 000,
356
|
|
|
|
 |
