fes had sometimes been introduced by lawyers,
under the idea that they were practising in the
art of special pleading.
He could cite instances where enormous costs
had been incurred in suits under our forms in
Maryland, greater than those in the case from
New York. but he would not go into that sub-
ject. He left it to the discretion of the legisla-
ture, which had the power to correct such
evils.
He read the latter part of the amendment of
the gentleman from Caroline, and contended
that it was not liable to the criticisms made upon
it by the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr.
Dorsey,) and repeated what he had said before
on the subject of the testamentary system, and
the continuance of the increased salary of the
Chancellor for many years, in consequence of
the negligence of the legislature in nut examin-
ing the annual bills, (to continue in force certain
laws,) before they were passed.
He knew from his own experience that it was
a practice merely to read the titles of certain
bills to continue bills about to expire for another
term, without reading more than the titles. He
never read these bills taking the word of the
chairman of the committee as to their con-
tents.
When gentlemen argued that a branch of a
Jaw might not be amended, without re-enacting
the whole law of which it was a part, he asked
if this was not running counter to the express
language of the article we have adopted? And
he read that article that the House might
judge.
He remarked on the criticism of the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, on the word "subject,"
and said that if it was susceptible of so many
constructions, it would have been better for
that gentleman to have moved the substitute of a
more distinct word by way of remedying the er-
ror. He laid down the principle that it requires
much menial discipline to he able to analyse any
subject embracing a variety of ideas, so as to
separate the elements, and collicate and arrange
then.; stated that there were few minds compe-
tent to the task, and applied it to the work of
codification.
He could readily conceive how gentlemen de-
sired to have the laws collected and collocated
to their hands, because it saved them the great
mental processes of searching up all the laws
and going through all the decisions of the Courts
of Appeals, it was a labor of such magnitude
that but few minds could be found capable of
performing it. He had seen many a member of
the bar who had lost a case, because his mind
had not taken in all the points of which it was
susceptible; and he had seen judges, who, from
the same cause had delivered false decisions.
The popular mind calls for a reform in our legal
system.
He was ready to adopt any mode best calcula-
ted to gratify popular feeling, to which he res-
ponded with all his heart and soul, which de-
mands that the laws shall be made so clear that
even the unlettered man may know them, and
that the "way-faring man, though a fool, may

not err therein." He had great respect for the
opinions of the gentleman from Anne Arundel as
to the codifying the laws, but be could not, on
this important subject, consent to abandon his
views.
It was so also, as to special pleading: the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel was so wedded to
old forms, that he thought the present system
could not be amended. But the popular demand
must be gratified.
Let these changes be made now, in the midst
of the nineteenth century, in the form of our
laws; and let our system of special pleading,
which no one desires to abolish, be revised and
so modified as to be in accordance with the ad-
vanced Intelligence of the age; and let the whole
system of our laws, of our forms of pleading, and
of our rules of practice, be adapted, as they can
be, to the condition and circumstances of society
as it is now; and let them not remain, as they
obviously are in many respects, adapted to the
condition the world was in, Anno Domini,
one.
Mr. DORSEY made an explanation in reply.
He said, he was inclined to question the expe-
diency, much less the necessity of the legislature
inflicting on the State, the enormous expendi-
ture of appointing two separate boards of com-
missioners on the two distinct subjects under this
amendment. He could not allow the construc-
tion put upon it, that the commissioners were to
make the code, and without submitting it to the
legislature, it was to become the law of the
land; such an opinion could not for a moment be
sustained. The code, until its adoption by the
legislature, had no vitality or operation. He had
no such intention, as was clear from the subse-
quent part of the amendment, where it is provid-
ed how the legislature might act with regard to
it. The legislature have the power to arrange
all the details without any constitutional provi-
sion.
He could not pretend to know any thing about
the popular feeling on the subject of special
pleading. If there really was any such feeling,
it was probably got up by politicians to subserve
some momentary purpose, and did not originate
with the people, and from its nature would soon
die away.
It had been asked by the gentleman from Fre-
derick, why, if he objected to the looseness of
the words "one subject," he did not propose to
substitute a more definite term; He could only
answer that he saw no necessity for any attempt on
his part, to amend a proposition to which he was
altogether opposed. It was certainly no part of
his duty to amend the proposition; and, in reply,
he would ask, why he did not amend if? Certainly
nobody was more competent to do so, than he
was. He cited some cases for the purpose of
showing that the word "subject" was too loose.
It would be better, he thought, to have a varie-
ty of subjects, relating to the same object, in one
bill, instead of having them scattered through
several bills, a separate bill for each separate
subject, although relating to one general object.
If the act should be either altered or amended,