tleman from Somerset presents. The truth is
it is not the number of cases upon the docket
which is the guide to the length of time required
to discharge the business of the court; it is the
character of the litigation, of the suits that are
brought before it; and from the fact that it takes
our county court five, six or seven weeks to get
through with its ordinary business, the fair pre-
sumption is that the amount of business is far
greater than that in Queen Anne's county,
whether it arises from the character of the
litigation or from any other cause. I hold that
this association of Baltimore county with Har-
ford and Cecil counties is imposing too large an
amount of labor upon the district. I know that
it has been said that by an act of Assembly Bal-
timore county court cannot continue in session
over one month. I am aware that the law pro-
vides that for city business the county court
shall commence its session upon a particular
day, and therefore, if the county business runs
into that day, it must necessarily cease. But
in answer to this I present the fact, from my
own personal knowledge, that in some way this
difficulty is overcome, for the county court at
the very last session continued from November
till Christmas. These are facts that the Con-
vention ought to be in possession of, and show
that Baltimore county should not to be arranged
with Harford and Cecil, and I hope the house
will not inflict upon us such awrong. I will
withdraw the motion to reconsider, having made
it merely to state the facts in connection with
this subject,
The question was then stated to be on agreeing
to the substitute of Mr. Chrisfield, as amended.
Mr. SPENCER. I desire to make a motion in
order that my opinions on this subject may be
thoroughly understood. I move to reconsider
the second branch of the proposition, and I do it
for the purpose of moving to insert these words:
"And in each of the said county court districts,
the chancery and the orphans' courts shall be in-
corporated into one court, and the person who
shall be elected as judge of the county courts,
within the said districts respectively, shall be the
judge of the said chancery and orphans' court,
shall have, hold, and exercise in the several coun-
ties of this State, all and every the powers, au-
thorities, and jurisdictions which the said chan-
cery and orphans' courts of this State now have,
use, and exercise, and which shall hereafter he
prescribed by law, and the judge thereof shall
have and use all other powers and authorities
which the chanceller and justices of the orphans'
courts of this State now have, by virtue of law,
or which may hereafter be prescribed by law
and the sessions of the said chancery and orphans'
courts shall be held in the several counties in this
State, at the time and place where the regular
terms of the said orphans' courts are now held,
and at such other times and places as may be
fixed and appointed by the judge of the said dis-
trict, or may be prescribed by law."
I did suppose, until the Chair announced his
decision just now, that I had a right to move my
amendment now. Otherwise, I should have
moved it before. I thought, as did the gentleman |
from Baltimore county, that when this section
came up fora division, it merely having been ta-
ken as a substitute for the original bill—that it
would stand precisely as the original bill stood,
subject to any amendment, I shall not appeal,
because it is too late to do so now. But, inasmuch
as I cannot do now what I proposed to do, and
what I thought I could do, I make the motion to
reconsider, and I do it to signify my purpose to
insert the words I have indicated. I want my po-
sition to be understood before the community
which I have the honor, in part, to represent. I
want it to be understood that I am in favor of a
system which would cheapen the administration
of justice in the Sate by some thirty thousand dol-
lars, and at the same time perfect the orphans'
court and chancery court system. I ask that the
question be taken by yeas and nays.
Mr. BOWIE. Is it in order to move to recon-
sider the entire section?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not, each
branch being inserted by separate votes.
Mr. GWINN. I will test the question by mo-
ving to lay the motion to reconsider on the
table.
Mr. SPENCER asked the yeas and nays on the
motion, which were ordered, and being taken,
resulted as follows: .
Affirmative— Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Ri-
caud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Kent,
Weems, Dalrymple, Merrick, Howard, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, John Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, McCub-
bin, Grason, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gai-
ther, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson
McHenry, Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn, Brent, of
Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer,
Davis, Waters, Weber, Holliday, Slicer, Smith,
and Brown—50.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Buchanan, Ridgely, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, George, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Magraw,
Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Brewer, Ander-
son. Fitzpatrick, and Parke—26.
So the motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
The question then recurred on agreeing to
the section as amended.
Mr. BOWIE asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Mitchell, Mer-
rick, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, McCul-
lough, Sprigg, McCubbin, Grason, George,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Gwinn, Sherwood, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith Parke, and
Brown—53.
Negative—Messrs. Chambers, of Kent, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Howard , Bu- |
