warrant it. My county engages the attention of
the court as long, if not longer, than any other
county on the Eastern shore. In reference to the
orphans' court and chancery court, the businesses
these courts will not keep any judge in the faithful
discharge of his duty exceeding two months in the
course of the year. My friend has referred to the
chancery jurisdiction of the counties. I have
been in practice on the Eastern shore, in full
practice, as is known by members of this Convention,
for the last twenty years or more, and I as-
sert that, upon an average, there have not been ex-
ceeding three chancery cases tried, either in the
high court or in the county court, as a court of
equity. I say more; that I have been retained as
Counsel in almost every case tried on one side or the
other, in the orphans court and in the chancery
court, and in that time the average per year has
not exceeded three cases in the Orphans' court;
I say this so far as that county is concerned. I
have bad some practice in Caroline county, and
the business will not amount to as much there. I
have not had the same practice in Talbot; but
have attended the courts, and have attended the
Courts in Kent. and pronounce the same result
to be the case there. If you attempt to put one
judge to either of these counties, I believe it will
be looked upon by the people as the greatest piece
of extravagance ever perpetrated.
The plan of the gentleman from Prince
George's recommends $62,500. I wish to demon-
state by statistics that this system is too extrava-
gant. What did the people call this Convention
for? Retrenchment was one great object, as well
in the judiciary as in other branches of the government.
And in order to understand the imper-
fections of our own, let us compare it with other
States. I will compare it with the States of New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, I
have now on my desk before me the cost of the
entire judiciary of the Slate of New York, It is
expensive on account of the amount of business
that comes before it for adjudication, the territo-
rial extent, and the vast commerce of the State.
The entire cost for the administration of jus-
tice in every department of that State is $123,500;
not quite double the expense of our judiciary
according to the estimate of the chairman of the
judiciary committee. In the immense State of
New York, the number of judges is only fifty,
with an expense of $123,500, and it is recom-
mended to us, in our small State, to have thir-
ty, with an expense of $62,500. Let gentlemen
turn to statistics. I have them before me. Let
them turn to the American Almanac, where they
will find the expenses of the judiciary in every
State in the Union exhibited, and they will see
that this is the state of the case. Look at New
York in another aspect, in reference to its popu-
lation. I have not the present census, but I have
that of I860, when the population of New York
was 2,428,921. It his greatly increased since that
time. The population of Maryland at the same
time was only 470,000, the population of New
York being more than five times as great as the
population of Maryland, Nor is this all. Look
at the wealth of the State of New York. Her
69 |
capital invested in manufactures, in the foreign
and retail trade amounted to $146,971,575. In
Maryland it amounted to $20,110,454. To prove
this, look at the census of 1840, pages 141,153
and 360. Does not this show how unreasonable
is the proposition which gives to Maryland thirty
judges at an expense of $62,500, whilst New
York has only fifty judges, at an expense of
$123,500. The people of this State ought not,
and never will submit to it. But, again. Look
at the wealth and power of the State of New
York as an agricultural community, as compared
with Maryland, and see what a strong contrast
is presented between her judiciary system and ours.
New York raised in 1840, as by the census of
that year appears, page 358 of wheat, barley,
oats, rye, buckwheat and indian corn, 51,721,827
bushels. Maryland raised of the same articles
only 15,913,857. See page 144 and 145 census
of 1840.
Mr. BOWIE. I would ask the gentleman what
has all this to do with this question.
Mr. SPENCER. If the gentleman had listened
to me, he would have understood me. I think
this Convention will understand, and the people
of Maryland will understand, that it is now asked
in this Convention to have an expensive judiciary,
amounting to $62,500, while other States of this
Union, who have justice administered as well
and as fully, pay nothing like as much, I intend
to compare the ability of Maryland with the
ability of these States, to show that the proposi-
tion is untenable.
Mr. BOWIE. The gentleman assumes this to
be an expensive system. When gentlemen say
this is an expensive system, I have a right to say-
it is not so. and upon a proper occasion, I will
show it to be not so upon the question of cost,
which I have not gone into at all.
Mr. SPENCER'. This is the difference between
the gentleman and myself. I say that it is ex-
pensive; he says it is not. I am arguing from
facts to show this; he argues that it is not. Let
the facts go to the country and to the world to
determine between the gentleman and myself.—
But, Mr. President, the disparity between our
State and Pennsylvania, is still greater than New
York.
Mr. MITCHELL. As the gentleman is going
into the State of Pennsylvania, I hope he will
yield to a motion to adjourn;
Mr. SPENCER. I will give way, though not
to suit myself, but to suit the Convention. It is
immaterial to me whether the Convention ad-
journs or not.
Mr. MITCHELL then submitted his motion to
adjourn, which was agreed to.
And the Convention accordingly adjourned until
to-morrow at nine o'clock.
THURSDAY, April 24, 1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. Gr a;
The journal of yesterday was read. |
