his own amendment, and the claims to prefer-
ence which, in his judgment, it possessed.
Mr. BUCHANAN concurred in part, he said, in
the opinion expressed by his friend from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey.) He, (Mr. B.,) thought
that the proposition to appoint one or more com-
missioners, was too indefinite and might lead to
difficulty. But he did not concur in the proposi-
tion of the gentleman to appoint only two com-
missioners, no matter how distinguished they
might be. It would be safer, (Mr. B. thought,)
looking to the grand divisions of the State—the
local legislation of the State, and the legal ability
of the State, that three should be appointed. At
all events, he thought the number should be de-
finite.
He referred to the code of Louisiana, as to the
accuracy of which some doubts had been expres-
sed, and spoke of it as a highly valuable and
accurate production.
Nor could he agree with the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, in the apprehension he had ex-
pressed, as to the other portion of the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Washington, [Mr.
Schley,] that, in the large discretion given to the
commissioners, the system of special pleading
would be broken down. There was no danger
of that result, in the first instance. But if the
commissioners should think that a system could
be devised by which justice could be better ob-
tained than by special pleading, let us get rid of
it. He hoped that the commissioners might con-
clude that it would be expedient to get rid of a
large portion of the system, if not of the whole.
The very reason, therefore, which induced the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, to go against that
portion of the amendment, would induce him,
(Mr. B.,) to go against it.
Mr. TUCK moved to amend the sixteenth sec-
tion, as amended, by inserting in the second line,
after the word "commissioners," the words "not
exceeding three," also by inserting the same
words after the word "commissioners," in the
fourth line.
The question was taken and the amendment
was adopted.
Mr. DENT said:
I have an amendment to offer, the object of
which is to refer to the commissioners to be ap-
pointed under this section, the forms of con-
veyancing now in use in this State, that they also
may be simplified and abridged. It has been sug-
gested to me, that this matter is otherwise pro-
vided for; but I am not aware of any provision
for this object, more than exists in the Legisla-
ture by non-prohibition. The Legislature also
has the same power, with regard to forms of
pleadings, rules of practice, &c., in the courts of
record. The power of the Legislature, in these
matters, is not questioned. But the object of the
section proposed, is to place the Legislature un-
der constitutional obligations, to perform the du-
ties specified in the section. I consider the
abridgement and simplification of conveyancing,
very important and necessary for general conve-
nience; and as it has been determined to appoint
a commission to simplify and abridge the forms of

pleading and rules of practice in the courts of re-
cord of the State, an object of which I highly
approve, it will add very little to the labors of
that commissioner, to prepare a set of simple and
abridged forms of conveyancing, which, when
once recognized in a formal manner, will imme-
diately obtain general use.
Mr. D. then moved to insert after the word
"State," in the fourth line, the following:
"And also to simplify and abridge the forms of
conveyancing, now in use in this State."
The question was taken and the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, asked the attention
of the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Schley]
to the language of his amendment. Was it the
purpose of the gentleman to revise and codify the
private as well as the public laws ?
Mr. SCHLEY. It is not.
Mr. CHAMBERS did not intend, he said, to make
any motion himself. He merely called the no-
tice of the gentleman to the words of the amend-
ment, which were ''whose duty it shall be to re-
vise and codify the statutes of this State."
.Mr. SCHLEY, [acquiescing in the suggestion of
Mr. Chambers,] moved to amend his amendment
by inserting before the word "statutes." where-
over it occurred, the words "public general."
The amendment was agreed to.
Some conversation followed in relation to the
propriety of the words "public general," in which
Messrs. DORSEY, SCHLEY, THOMAS and CHAMBERS,
of Kent, took part.
The substitute amendment of Mr, DORSEY, was
then again read, as follows:
"Section 16. The style of ill laws shall be:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Ma-
ryland." The Legislature of Maryland, shall at
its next session, if then practicable, if not, as noon
thereafter as it can be done, contract with two
learned jurists of this State, distinguished, as
well for their industry as professional ability, to
codify or digest and abridge the public acts of
Assembly then in force, and every ten years
thereafter, and additional code or digest, shall,
in like manner, be made of all public acts of the
Legislature, passed subsequently to those em-
braced in preceding codes or digests, and no act
of Assembly shall include in its enactments, sub-
jects unconnected with each other, and forming
fit subjects for distinct and independent legisla-
tion; and the title of every bill shall indicate the
nature of its enactments, and no law or any sec-
tion thereof, shall be continued, revived,
amended or repealed by reference to its title on-
ly, or the number of the section."
Mr. BROWN said, it was his intention to vote
against the substitutes of the gentleman from
Queen Anne, [Mr. Spencer,] and the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, [Mr. Dorsey,] with the in-
tention of voting for the substitute of the gentle-
man from the city of Baltimore, (Mr. Gwinn.)
Mr. SCHLEY took two objections to the substi-
tute of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, [Mr.
Dorsey,] first, that it proposed either a codification
or a digest, (i.e. abridgement.)