paring Acts of Assembly which if passed produ-
ced great mischief, but he, (Mr. P.) would not
trust to that—the agumentum ad modestiam might
not be always a safeguard. If any change is to
be made in the insolvent or testamentary systems,
surely it ought not be necessary to codify in the
act of Assembly, looking to a slight alteration,
all (hit relates to the subject contained in any
previous act. The Convention will unquestion-
ably provide for a digest and codification of the
laws. and if that was done, would not that in ef-
fect accomplish all that could be reasonably de-
sired? Not only ii there danger from the inex-
perience of members of the General Assembly,
and on. that point he might be allowed to say that,
when he was in the Legislature ten years ago,
and at that time Chairman of the Judiciary com-
mittee, be was certainly incompetent to present
any act on an important subject, if the amend-
ment now offered had been a part of the Constitution.
Very few eminent lawyers are seldom
found in the Legislative branch of our State Gov-
ernment, and such men alone are competent to
codify a system of laws. But, sir, at present no
great evil results by allowing any member of the
General Assembly to take part in the prepara-
tion of the laws of the State, especially upon the
less important subjects.
Mr. BROWN said he should vote against the
amendment. Either the laws must remain a» they
are, or they must be codified. There were but
few men in the legislature who were qualified for
the work; and if the Legislature were to embody
all the existing laws in a new code, a hundred
men would be employed, and would not do it af-
ter all so well as three skilful and experienced
men. He was therefore against the proposition.
Mr. SPENCER said be was impressed with the
importance of the subject, and was apprehensive
that the Convention was progressing in a matter
which might produce serious evil. He had a
strong desire to vote for any proposition, coming
from his friend, Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, but
he would not support this. It requires the Le-
gislature hereafter, when a law is amended, to
re-enact every law bearing on the subject. It
was urged, that the purpose was to make the acts
of Assembly clear and intelligible to all, so as to
supersede the necessity of applying to the law-
yers lor information. He did not hesitate to say,
that if this amendment prevailed, it would have
the very contrary result, if we desired to do an
act to benefit the lawyers, no scheme could be
divined which would redound more to their profit
than this. A very lew members of the Legisla-
ture could be found who would undertake a task
of so much difficulty. There would be too much
hazard in it. In the enactment of a law, if the
Constitution prescribes the mode, it must be
strictly followed. If, therefore, an amendment
to a public or local law becomes necessary, and
the amendment be adopted, then to make such
an amendment, you must re-enact, as he had
laid, every previous Act of Assembly bearing on
the subject. In such case, if a single law con-
nected with the subject he omitted, then if the
re-enactment be valid, every Act of Assembly
which was omitted would be repealed. And, on

the other hand, if the law be anulled, because of
its failure to re-enact all the previous laws existing,
then all the legislation on the subject would
be lost, together with all the expenses incident to
the same Who can fail to see, in such a state of
things, that lawyers would he constantly hanging
on the Legislature, to be employed in drafting
laws for the members, and that interminable
controversies would be carried on in the courts,
the result of such legislation ?
The gentleman from Frederick illustrated by
saying, that if that portion of the testimentary
laws, relating to guardians, and wards, required
amendment, it would only be necessary to re-
enact that portion of the law. which referred to
guardians and wards. To do even this, would
require great labor, time and expense, in mak-
ing amendments Could it be necessary, if it
became desirable to amend the law of guardian
and ward, so as to require more ample security,
that the whole law should be re-enacted in every
particular? It was inexpedient and unwise to,
do so.
But he thought the gentleman was wrong in
saying, that it would only be necessary to re-
enact that part of the act of 1798, which in its
subdivision refers to guardian and ward.—
Throughout, that whole act, there are parts which
bear immediately on the subject. In fact, it is
one whole system, testimentary in its character,
and if the amendment prevail, there is good
ground to contend, that any amendment, would
require the re-enactment of the whole system.
How is it with the laws of insolvency and of at-
tachment? They each make a perfect system,
on the subjects to which they respectively refer.
And the same may be said of the school system
for each of the counties—who, with such a sec-
tion in the Constitution, would hazard an amend-
ment to alter one of these systems of law, with
consequences so alarming, in the event of a fail-
ure to provide fully for the evil. Who would
undertake a work of such high responsibility,
such intense labor and such accurate skill?
But it is proposed to provide in the Constitu-
tion for a codification of the laws. Pass this
amendment, and until the laws are codified the
legislature will be engaged, in the re-enactment
of all and every part of every act of assembly,
which may require amendment, to be adapted to
this Constitution.
This will be done at great expense of time, in
the delay of the legislature, and of immense costs
for printing. And this, too, at the very time
when scientific commissioners will be actually
engaged in the very work of arranging the laws.
And again, after the laws have been actually
codified, still, whenever an amendment becomes
necessary, the same evil of re-enactment is to
continue, with its interminable consequences
of costs and consequent litigation.
He hoped the Convention would long delibe-
rate, before it adopted such amendment. He
would not enter the ample field of argument
which it opened. His purpose being in a plain
and practical way to assign the grounds of his
opposition.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, made some explan-