amendment of the gentleman from Charles, and
I do not accept it, [Laughter.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Then I have not a word to
say, and I shall vote for the proposition of the
gentleman from Prince George's county.
The question was then stated to be upon agree-
ing to the amendment of Mr. Jenifer.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. Is the propo-
sition amendable?
The PRESIDENT. The proposition is not
amendable.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr, Jenifer, and it was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the substitute offered by Mr. Bowie.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved to amend
the substitute by striking out the words "shall
be prescribed by law," and inserting in lieu
thereof, the words "shall be fifteen hundred dol-
lars."
Mr. B. said: The gentleman from Frederick
seems to think, as I infer from his remarks, that
I had advocated that judges should be taken from
the learned profession. I am as ultra as he or
any other man, and all I desire is consistency.
I did not express an opinion whether the judges
should come from the legal profession or not,
but if the gentleman is consistent, let him move
to strike out the clause which provides that the
judges of the county courts and of the court of
appeals, shall come from the legal profession.
Mr. JOHNSON. I will do it.
Mr. BRENT. Then I will go with the gentle-
man. If I am not mistaken. I think my friend
voted for this very judicial system. He can
say whether he did or not. But he says that the
words in the amendment proposed by the gen-
tleman from Prince George's county do not
confine the judges to the legal profession. To
whom, then, does it refer? How can a man be
experienced in law unless he is a member of the
legal profession, or unless he has been engaged
in a large number of lawsuits? The gentleman'
referred to a person who he says ought to be
chief justice, because he has had more litigation
than most others, is that a qualification for
judge? I should say that he was the very last
man that ought to be upon the bench, because,
being a litigious man himself, he will be for
making lawsuits.
Mr. SPENCER. What is the language used in
all the constitutions on that subject? Is it not the
game?
Mr. BRENT. Does it not mean members of the
legal profession?
Mr. SPENCER. Have not judges been appoint-
ed who were never lawyers?
Mr. BRENT. Can the gentleman specify any
instances where persons unlearned in the law
and not members of the legal profession, have
been appointed? According to my understanding
of these terms, according to the gentleman's ex-
planation, they mean members of the legal pro-
fession. If they have no force or meaning, they
are senseless, and should be discarded If they
do not mean members of the legal profession,
why not strike them out? Why retain them. I am
willing to abolish this thing of having judges of |
the common law courts and of the orphan's
courts from the legal profession, and endorse the
doctrine that the people, the entire people, may be
trusted by their intelligence and integrity to elect
their judges from all classes of citizens, lawyers,
farmers, &c. I desire only to be consistent and
if these words mean nothing, let us strike them
out to prevent further cavil. I withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, I move to
amend the substitute by reducing the number of
judges to two, so that there will be one learned in
the law, and one not of the legal profession; and I
do this for the purpose of enabling me to make a
few remarks. I have only to say that it does
seem to me that this is the most mongrel judicial
system ever heard of. Here is a proposition lo have
three judges, two of them to be laymen and one
to be learned in the law.
Mr. JOHNSON. Experienced in the law.
Mr. BRENT, Well, "experienced in the law."
What are they to do? To be chancellors as well
as judges of the orphans' courts. I have a strong
objection to this whole scheme; and I do not be-
lieve that you could find any one State in the
United States where courts having chancery ju-
risdiction are to be composed of judges unlearned
in the law. If there is such a State, I am not
aware of it I consider that the most important
cases that can arise any where are usually chan-
cery cases. I know that in Baltimore city, the
cases involving the largest amount of property
are chancery cases, and those are to be decided
by a court, according to the proposition of the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie,)
a majority of whom are to be inexperienced and
unlearned in the law. In the name of heaven,
if such a proposition is to prevail, abolish every
clause in your new constitution as already adopt-
ed requiring judges to be taken from the legal
profession. Go the whole figure, and let them
all be laymen and unlearned in the law; put no
restriction on them. That is my objection to these
associate judges, constituting a majority, exerci-
sing chancery jurisdiction, that you depart from
a principle already established in regard to the
common law judges. I am for letting the or-
phans' courts remain as they are. I am not for
requiring that the judges of the orphans' courts
shall be of the legal profession, because I think
wo have got along very well with the simple mode
of procedure in the orphans' courts, by having
judges of practical men, farmers, &c., with no
technicalities of pleading. And yet this proposes
to violate the existing system, by requiring that
one judge shall be learned in the law. Can any
body tell what is the object of having two associ-
ate judges there; For what? Why to be con-
trolled, if they are modest men, by the third judge,
who is learned in the law. Why not, then, have
one judge at once, and save two-thirds of the ex-
penses? It appears to me to be a mongrel propo-
sition, uniting the orphans' court and the chancery
court, and combining the objections of the peo-
ple to both systems, because you allow a majority
to decide in chancery cases, that majority to be
unlearned in the law, and not taken from the le-
gal profession at all, thus violating every princi- |
