moved an amendment in the fourth degree,
which is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER sustained the point,
and ruled the gentleman out of order.
Mr. CRISFIELD. Then I will modify my own
proposition. I understand that there was a vote
taken while I was out of the hall, striking from
the original bill the jurisdiction proposed to be
given to the judges as judges of the Orphans'
Court, Out of respect to this decision of the
Convention, I will modify my own proposition
so as to conform to it, and strike oat all that
part of it which relates to the Orphans' Courts
of the several counties.
Mr. RIDGELY. I understand we are to vote
on the proposition of the gentleman from Queen
Anne's as a substitute for the proposition of the
gentleman from Somerset. I am disposed to
vote for the classification of the districts; it
meets my approbation. But other matters are
contained in the section, which I understand,
by a decision of the chair, is not now in order
to amend To obviate the objection which I
have to the part of the section referring to con-
solidating the Equity and Orphans' Court's juris-
diction, making the courts of a movable charac-
ter, I ask for a division of the question.
Mr. SPENCER. Suppose I accept the sugges-
tion and strike out of my amendment that part
which refers to the equity jurisdiction.
Mr. RIDGELY. Then the question of the
movability of the courts would remain
Mr. SPENCER. That can be amended here-
after.
Mr. RIDGELY. I prefer asking a division of
the question.
Mr. THOMAS. Before the question is taken,
I desire to disembarrass myself, and in doing so
may relieve others by a motion to amend the
original proposition which the gentleman from
Somerset proposes to strike out altogether.
The complexity of these propositions embarrass-
es me in voting for every one of them. They not
only district the State and arrange it into cir-
cuits, but provide the time when a court is to
sit, and the number of terms it shall hold in a
year. I move to strike out "two," in the origi-
nal proposition, and insert "four," so as to pro-
vide for four terms in a year.
I will barely say, in connection with my
amendment, that from my experience, which is
not very long, in courts of justice, one of the
principal causes of the enormous costs attend-
ant upon all proceedings to vindicate a right, in
a court of law, grows out of the fact that the
judges sit only twice in twelve months, if the
courts were held four times, it would be an im-
mense relief to every suitor in court. If there
be one hundred causes on the docket, the par-
ties having witnesses summoned to attend in the
last case upon the docket are subjected to the
expense sometimes of attending four long tedi-
ous weeks, at an enormous expense every day
At the expiration of four weeks the judge may
be called somewhere else. The same case
then comes up at the next term, when there is
a great accumulation of costs, and the parlies
have to wait perhaps two weeks more. I have |
seen a trifling case, with not more than five dol-
lars worth of property involved, cost three hun-
dred dollars lor the attendance of witnesses.
This, in my own humble judgment, is the root of
the evil. There is a large class of our people—
the mechanical and laboring—whose outstanding
debts are indispensable to their subsistence.
When they are put to the necessity of suing,
(that class, in proportion to its number, being
most generally forced into courts of justice,)
they have to wait six long months before they
can get judgment, and in the meantime are
obliged to sacrifice the claim at enormous rates.
If we secure to them the privilege of obtaining
judgment in ninety days, and reduce the claim
to a judgment, it becomes a lien on property,
and is available to almost every purpose. I do
not propose to expedite the collection of debts.
I will leave to the Legislature to say what stay
of execution shall be granted. My principal
object is to obtain judgment at an early day, that
the party may obtain the liquidation of its
claim. I desire this settled as a preliminary
question, and ask the yeas and nays on agreeing
to the amendment.
Mr. RANDALL. Is the gentleman's proposi-
tion capable of amendment'
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
Mr. RANDALL, it is not with a view to make
any alteration, but to make some remarks cor-
roborative of what the gentleman has said.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. Is this in
order? I should like to make some remarks
myself respecting the amendment.
Mr. HICKS. I desire to ask the gentleman
from Frederick whether four terms will require
the summoning of jurors four times a year.
Mr. THOMAS, Certainly, sir.
The yeas and nays were then ordered on
agreeing to the amendment of Mr. Thomas, and
being taken resulted as follows:
Affirmative.— Messrs. Donaldson, Wells, Ran-
dall, Kent, Buchanan, McLane, Thomas, Shri-
ver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Stewart,
of Caroline, Sherwood, of Baltimore city. Ware,
Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Weber, Holliday, Smith, Ege
and Shower—25.
Negative.— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple, Brent,
of Charles, Howard, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Ridgely, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, John
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, McCullough,
Miller, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, Grason,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Nelson, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Davis, Kilgour. Brewer,
Waters, Anderson, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke
and Brown—57.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on agreeing to the
substitute of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. MCMASTER moved to amend the original
section of the report by striking out the words |
