You have one judge in your chancery court.
There has never been a complaint. You have
determined to have but one judge in the county
courts. Why is it not equally necessary to limit
the number in the orphans' court? This is one
of the principles contended for by the reformers
of Maryland. Let us not turn back. This re-
form is called for. The register of wills is to
be elected by the people; and are you afraid to
trust them. They will select him, knowing what
duties he will he called upon to perform. I ap-
peal to reformers if they fear to trust the man
whom they will select. I withdraw the motion
to postpone.
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved to amend the substi-
tute by adding at the end thereof the following
proviso:
"Provided no practice or system of pleading,
other than those now existing, be introduced
into said orphans' court."
Mr. F. said, I fear that the projet of the gen-
tleman from Kent, gives the judges more power
than I should be willing to give them. It may
be that he will permit none but lawyers to come
before the court, and introduce special pleading,
My object is to avoid that, and to retain the
present system.
Mr. GRASON. I believe this is the first time
I ever made the motion in my life; but I now
call for the previous question.
Mr. BOWIE, Will the gentleman withdraw
that motion for a moment. I wish to move to
strike out all that relates to an appeal from the
judge and the register of wills to the county
court, I will renew the call for the previous
question if the gentleman desires it.
Mr, GRASON withdrew the motion.
Mr. BOWIE. I am quite satisfied that the gen-
tleman from Kent was not aware of the practical
results that would follow from allowing appeals
from the register of wills to the county court;
first of all, making him, in effect, ajudge of the
orphans' court. The register of wills is to re-
ceive all the fees and perquisites which belong
to that office, in every case of an appeal, a
record is to be made out to be sent to the revis-
ing judge. We all know the enormous costs
which attend the transmiting of records. Here
there is a premium offered to the register of
wills to have his judgment appealed from. I
submit it to the gentleman from Kent whether
it would not be better to strike out this feature,
and take away the temptation arising from the
fees for transmitting records to every appeal.—
it would be an alarming state of facts growing
necessarily out of the system, because combining
in one person the offices of judge and clerk. I
hope some modification will be made, I desire a
system to be devised by which some portion of
the burdens now imposed upon the circuit judges
may be taken off, as very properly suggested by
the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Gra-
son.) I have been laboring day after day to in-
troduce some wholesome and useful reform in
the judiciary system. I have endeavored to en-
graft upon the Constitution a system which
would bring home justice to every man's door,
by giving a judge to each county, believing it in |
the end to be cheaper I shall now vote for any
well-digested plan by which the chancery juris-
diction may be taken from the circuit courts.—
I do not think the system of the gentleman from
Kent will answer that purpose. Of all the
plans yet brought forward, I think this is the
most defective; because it gives an inducement
to the judge so to decide that there shall be an
appeal, in order that he may, as register of
wills, receive the fees arising on appeals.—
Thousands and thousands of orders and judg-
ments are passed every day: and when partics
are unable to go to the cost of appealing, they
will have to suffer, no matter what injustice may
have been committed by the register.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will there be any orders
then passed by the register of wills not now
passed by the court? And will there be any
more interest then to promote an appeal than
there is now, and always has been, upon the
part of the register?
Mr. BOWIE. I think there will be, and I will
put the case. Now the judges give a decision,
for the error of which the register is not answer-
able. By the gentleman's plan, the register is
the very party from whose judgment the appeal
is to be taken. I ask you, if he were a dis-
honest man, whether ho would not have all his
judgments appealed from? If he was looking
merely to his fees as register of wills, would not
every appeal increase those fees? I wish to see
a system proposed which will be more useful
than that now existing; and I will co-operate
with any gentleman who will give to the or-
phans' court, chancery jurisdiction within the
circumscribed limits of a county. At a proper
time, I shall submit my amendment, should the
previous question not be sustained. I under-
stand that it is not now in order.
Mr. GRASON renewed the motion for the pre-
vious question.
Mr. BOWIE demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
ayes 39, noes 39, as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Sellman, Howard, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Chambers of Cecil, Miller, Spencer,
Grason, George, Wright, Fooks, Thomas, John-
son, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Mc-
Henry, Felson, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city. Ware, Fiery, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis,
Brewer, Weber, Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Shower. Cockey and Brown—39
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Randall, Dalrymple, Bond, Jenifer, Bu-
chanan. John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Da-
shiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, McLane, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Dirickson. McMaster, Hearn, Jacobs, Magraw,
Schley, Kilgour, Waters, Anderson and Smith—
39.
So the previous question was not sustained.
The question being then taken upon the amend-
ment moved by Mr. Fitzpatrick, resulted—ayes
39; noes 26. So the amendment was agreed to. |
