Mr. DORSEY resumed, in reply. If he was asked
his private opinion, he would reply that, if,
in the cases stated, the repealing clause was in-
sorted in the new act, the previous, law would be
repealed. Or if the amendments conflicted
with each, they would be ineffectual in their
operation. And if the repealing clause was not
inserted, the pre-existing laws which had been
omitted in the codified and re-enacted law would
remain in full force,
The amendment does not say that the whole
of the laws are to be re-enacted, but only that
parts of the law shall be examined and re-en-
acted, and published at length. He could see
no advantage which would be derived from thus
re-enacting and publishing these parts of the
law, which may have been rescinded by the
amendment; and he thought it ought not to be
done—that it would lead to endless confu-
sion.
He believed the gentleman from Washington,
(Mr. Schley,) did not design to employ any oth-
er than competent lawyers in the performance of
this task. One of his great objections to a
change in the system, was that the instability of
laws render them of less efficiency.
On the subject of special pleading, he referred
to the change which had been made in that
branch of the practice in New York. He had
heard it said that the new system worked well
there. But it was the very last system (for rea-
sons which he a few days ago had advanced to
some,) that he would adopt. From all he had seen
or known of its operation, he was on every ground
opposed to it. Certainly it would not do in the
State of Maryland, to increase the costs of liti-
gation to more than ten times their present
amount.
Mr SCHLEY explained that he had no desire
to abolish special pleading. So far as his own
opinion went, he would much prefer to see it
made still more special.
Mr. DORSEY entirely agreed with the gentle-
man from Washington there. It requires to be
made more special. He referred to the simpli-
city of the present practice in cases where non
assumpsit, non cut, &c., were the proper pleas;
and argued that it was scarcely necessary to
have included special pleading in the amendment
of the gentleman from Washington.
It was not necessary to appoint commissioners
at a great expense to the State, to change a
course of practice which the legislature had it in
their power, at any time, to change without put-
ting the State to any expense.
He then explained the nature and object of
special pleading. The length, the expenses and
all the characteristics of this system of practice
in Maryland, differed widely from what they
Were in the States which were enthusiastic on
the subject of progess. Justice was here ad-
ministered as cheaply as it was in any State
where justice is administered 'in the same way
He put some cases, for the purpose of showing
how the New York system would work in Maryland.
New York had abolished special plead
ing, and would not permit a defendant to put in
the simple plea of "not guilty," or non assump-

sit; but in lieu of this, the plaintiff and defendant
are required to put in a brief statement of facts,
and that brief statement has led to more litigation
than any other mode which has been devised.
If the plaintiff or defendant fail to insert
every thing required in his statement or answer,
his loss is ten times greater in New York than
in Maryland.
He read one of these statements, of which a
gentleman had furnished him with a copy; and
he reading furnished much amusement to the
House. He then read the bill of costs appended
to the statement from which it appeared that
the costs to the defendant for an unsuccessful resistance
to a suit—nay, where there was no resistance,
no trial, but judgment by default, no
jury being required—for $296, amounted to
$96 75; while in Maryland they would only have
been $6 or $7.
He had also understood that in one case in
New York, the answer put in by the defendant
covered six thousand pages. And this is under
the reformed system by which special pleading
has been abolished, and legal proceedings have
been simplified.
Mr. SCHLEY repeated that he had not attempt-
ed to abolish special pleading.
Mr. DORSEY said, it was a mistake of his. It
was the gentleman from Queen Anne's.
Mr. SCHLEY said, the proposition of the gen-
tleman from Queen Anne's was not before the
House. He desired to state that his amendment
looked only to amending and modifying the pre-
sent system of special pleading, by which he
meant to make it more special, merely stripping
it of its antiquated forms and superflous ver-
biage,
Mr. DORSEY replied, if such were his object his
amendment was not limited to its accomplish-
ment. The amendment opened the door to the
abolition of all special pleading.
Mr THOMAS said:
There was certainly nothing in the present
amendment which contemplated the abolition of
the system of special pleading. It looked only
to the appointment of commissioners to revise
and modify the present practice and pleadings.
No man would deny that some change was neces-
sary in the old laws which had become liable to
great abuses. The first proposition was to codi-
fy the laws and submit the work to the legisla-
ture; and the second was to revise the system of
special pleading and practice, and report the re-
salt to the legislature.
He, for one, had never joined in the cry
against special pleading. On the contrary, he
thought the establishment of the present system
one of the greatest efforts of human wisdom. It
was probable that so the commissioners would
report to the legislature. But he might also be
of opinion, that the system had not kept pace
with the changes of circumstances, and the progress
of public sentiment; and can it be said that
we are on dangerous ground, when we desire only
to make such changes as will adapt it to the
present advanced state of human intellect' He
was not, however, going into that branch of the
subject. But it could not be denied that puerili-