Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of Balt. city. Brent of
Balt. city, Sherwood of Balt. city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Da-
vis, Waters, Holliday, Slicer, Shower, Cockey
and Brown—46.
So the Convention refused to reconsider their
vote,
Mr. GRASON. Merely for the purpose of ma-
king some remarks on this proposition, I offer the
following amendment:
"That the said judge shall also revise the de-
cisions of every justice of the peace in his judi-
cial district, at least six times in every year."
I believe it is admitted, by all, that it is very
important that these law judges should have suf-
ficient time to discharge the important duties de-
volved upon them by the Constitution. In the
judicial district in which I reside we have four
counties. According to the present provisions of
the Constitution, a judge must hold a regular
term of his court eight times a year in these four
counties Besides that, they will have to trans-
act an immense amount of chancery business, if
the chancery court is abolished. In addition to
all that, the gentleman provides that be shall at
least once in three weeks, sixteen times a year,
revise the proceedings of the Register of Wills ,
and an appeal is granted. There are frequently
no parties in cases of that kind. A man is both
executor and guardian for infant children, three
or four years of age, perhaps. After a long lapse
of time they may bring up the case; but in the
meantime, the action of the Register of Wills is
final, although it may have been very unjust.
Care will be taken not to place any of the im-
proper accounts before the circuit judge, for his
inspection, and he could not know of the omis-
sion, being obliged to be in each of four counties
at least four times in each year. It would take
up all his time, and it would be impossible for
him to transact any other business. I withdraw
the amendment.
Mr JENIFER. I move, with a similar view,
the following amendment.
[The amendment was read.]
Mr. J. said, it is with very great reluctance
that I say a word upon this subject. It is with
great reluctance that, upon such a question as
this, I differ from my friend from Kent, (Mr.
Chambers) I cannot conceive it possible that
his proposition should be carried out. It is pla-
cing too much power and responsibility upon any
register or clerk. You cannot, for the compen-
sation allowed, get men properly qualified to
take these high responsibilities, and properly dis-
charge all the duties imposed by this section. If
the plan can be so regulated that the judge of
the district can perform the duties of the common
law and chancery courts, and also discharge the
duties of the Orphans' Courts, I might be in-
duced lo vote for it. Otherwise I shall be compelled
to vote against it. I withdraw the amend-
ment.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I move to amend, bystriking
out "original," before "jurisdiction," so as to let
in—what I have to say, (Laughter.)
The Orphans' Court system is one of exceed- |
ing importance to the whole of our constituents,
as is manifest from the great interest taken in it
here. I desire to put myself right upon the sub-
ject. I stand pledged before my constituents to
reduce the number of judges, wherever they can
be dispensed with. Hence it is that I was most
decidedly in favor of the proposition lo substitute
one judge for three, on Saturday last. My own
experience is that one judge is just as competent
to transact the business of the Orphans' Court as
three, and a good deal more so. I consider two
associates as supernumeraries, absolutely in the
way of the judge who does the business of the
court. We have abundant examples to show,
not only that the Orphans' Court business may he
transacted by one individual, but that a much
larger amount of business can be done by a single
officer. The Orphans' Court is hemmed in by
county lines; whereas the Chancellor's jurisdiction
extends throughout the State, He performs
his duties alone. He would be encumbered by
having any body with him
Now with regard to the county court for civil
business in the city of Baltimore. Very frequent-
ly, when the most important cases, as cases of
insurance or of ejectment, are on trial, there are
but two judges on the bench; often but one; and
we go on quite as expeditiously as with three.
Whether there be three or one, in an important
case, an appeal always goes up. My desire is so
to arrange the Orphans' Court system as to have
but a single judge. In the county of Baltimore,
with a population of 40,000, there is practically
but one judge in the Orphans' Court, I venture
to say that if you have but one judge, and that
one elected by the people, and paid a liberal per
diem, you will have the duties performed far bet-
ter than with three. I now withdraw my amend-
ment.
Mr, SPENCER. I move to postpone, and shall
say but one or two words. I maybe considered
by some as tenacious upon the subject of reform
in the orphans' court. If there be any subject
upon which I feel a deep interest, it is this. In
canvassing Queen Anne's county before my
election here, upon every occasion, and at all
the hustings where I had the honor to address
the people, one vital question upon which I ad-
dressed them was the reform in the orphans'
court, and the necessity for a consolidation of
that court with the chancery court. So fully
did I discuss that question, that it was even
made a charge against me. Having been elected
under those circumstances, I feel that I am re-
flecting the wishes of my constituents. I shall
vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
Kent. It is not a novel one. It is a system
which works well in other States of the Union.
I hold that what can be done in Pennsylvania or
Delaware, can be done in Maryland, We are
not behind the age. Our judges here can per-
form whatever duties judges can perform else-
where. I am told that in the great city of Phil-
adelphia, where so many hundreds of thousands
of dollars are passing through the orphans' court
annually, the orphans' court only occupies twen-
ty-four days in the course of the whole year.— |
