Mr. CRISFIELD said that he should prefer that
the rule should not be suspended. He should
have occupied but a very few moments longer,
and he should prefer to waive the little that he
had further to say rather than to have the rule
suspended.
Mr. BROWN hoped the Convention would not
suspend the rule. They had been now nearly
six mouths in session, and these important ques-
tions had been examined by gentlemen who
had made up their minds as to how they should
vote. If they should suspend this rule, he did
not know whether they would ever get through
with their business.
Mr. BOWIE thought there was no occasion for
remarks, as the gentleman had refused to pro-
ceed.
Mr. MERRICK did not believe that the gentle-
man would refuse the courtesy of the Conven-
tion.
Mr. STEPHENSON demanded the year and nays
on the motion to suspend the rule.
Mr. CRISFIELD hoped the Convention would
not suspend the order. He had but a few words
more to say, and it was not worthy the attention
of the body He hoped his friend from Charles
would withdraw the motion to suspend.
Mr. MERRICK replied that he would not insist
on the motion. He was desirous of hearing the
gentleman, as he was giving him useful and
valuable information, which he as well as other
gentlemen stood in need of. He, therefore
withdrew his motion,
Mr. BOWIE then said: I did not wish this
question to come up to-day. My health is such
as will not permit me to go into an examination
of the question as fully as I desire. I was in
hopes that some other gentlemen of the com-
mittee, who were prepared to take up this fea-
ture of the report, and to have submitted their
views upon the subject, would have done so.
The Convention, however, have thought proper
not to gratify me in the desire which I ex-
pressed, to have this matter postponed until to-
morrow; and I find myself forced at this time to
express to them what opinions I may have
formed upon this question, and to vindicate the
report of the committee upon this subject,
I consider that in this whole matter of judi-
cial reform, it is our bounden duty to carry out,
as nearly as we can, the great fundamental and
cardinal principles which you have incorporated
in your bill of rights, and which, when the gov-
ernment was first established, was incorporated
in the bill of rights of 1776.
Mr. SPENCER. The gentleman seems to ex-
press a desire not to discuss this question on ac-
count of indisposition. I intend myself, as the
gentleman from Somerset has done, to give some
facts upon the subject. It is my intention to
speak upon this question, as I have offered an
amendment. If the gentleman is too indisposed
to proceed, he can yield the floor to me.
Mr. BOWIE. You intend to speak against it,
and therefore I will go on. I ask no favors of
my friend from Somerset on this point, nor do I
mean to ask the further indulgence of this
House. |
I conceive it to he our solemn duty to come
as nearly as possible to the great requisition
contained in our bill of rights in forming the
judicial system, and I ask the attention of this
body to the emphatic language contained in the
17th article of that instrument, which we have
reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of this Con-
vention. It is as follows:
"That every freeman, for any injury done
him in his person or property, ought to have
remedy by the course of the law of the land, and
ought to have justice and right freely, without
sale, fully without any denial, and speedily with-
out delay, according to the law of the land."
Speedily without delay— this is the most im-
portant enumeration in the whole catalogue.
We agree, then, as a cardinal principle, that in
forming a system of judicature, it is our duty to
establish such a system as will admit us to jus-
tice most speedily and without delay. Then,
let me ask how the system of my friend from
Somerset (Mr. Crisfield) will work and com-
pare with this great principle in the bill of
rights? He proposes to divide the State into
eight judicial districts, in some cases to put
three counties together, and in other cases to
put four in one district. He proposes to have
one judge for each judicial district. One judge
to attend to the orphans' court business, the
common law business, the equity business and
the appeals from the magistrates' decisions in
that district. This is the proposition submitted
by the gentleman from Somerset, The whole
to be done by one judge, who is to be elected by
the people of a district, to be composed of three
counties in some cases, and four in others.
Now, it seems to me that my friend is super-
adding to the evils under which the people of
the State are already suffering. Your State is
already divided into six judicial districts. You
have now three judges to ride the circuits, who
do all the judicial business in ajudicial district
composed of counties. But as the system now
stands, you have a separate orphan's court, and
you have a high court of chancery to assist them
and relieve them of much of these duties. My
friend from Somerset proposes that there shall
be eight judicial districts, with one judge to
each district, and that this one judge shall dis-
charge all these duties. I say, in the onset, that
the proposition is too plain to be argued; that, if
the present system shows that the judicial ad-
ministration in this State has not been satisfac-
tory to the people, if justice has not been speed-
ily enough administered under a system which
is not clogged by these additional labors, how
much worse will it be under a system of judi-
cial districts by which it is proposed to super-
add to these judges additional labors, and at the
same time to reduce the number of agents to
be employed? If three judges in a judicial dis-
trict do not satisfactorily discharge the duties
now imposed upon them by existing laws, when
they have not the orphans' court jurisdiction,
when they have not even the exclusive chan-
cery jurisdiction, how, in the name of common
sense, are we to be bettered in our condition by
cutting down the judges to one, and superadding |
