ple of chancery jurisdiction in the United States
and also the principle already engrafted in your
Constitution. I propose to reduce the number of
judges to two, thus cutting down the expense
one third.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. Brent, and it was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to amend the proposition
by striking out the words "from among those ex-
perienced in the laws."
Mr. J. said: The argument of the gentleman
seems to presuppose that this proposition of the
gentleman from Prince George's requires a
Judge to be learned in the law and a lawyer
That is not the language of the substitute. It is
one experienced in the law.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. Docs it mean
one who is not of the legal profession?
Mr. JOHNSON. I mean that I shall vote for
this because I think the people have sense
enough to judge of their agents, whether they
are lawyers or not. I mean precisely what I
say, that this thing of putting in one learned in
the law is flummery. Where is your court of
inquiry; where are your investigators; where
your college of examiners? It is the people.
Therefore, this is all humbugging, in relation to
placing these words in, if you give this power
to the people. If my reform friends cannot trust
the people; if they must chain them down with
iron bars; if I am to he told by a reformer that
the people cannot judge who are qualified or
who are not qualified agents, I have fought re-
form battles for little purpose. I say it is a re-
flection for a man who has been preaching
about reform and confidence in the people,
to tell the people that they shall take nothing
but a lawyer. If the people have not sense
enough to discriminate upon that subject, if
they are so ignorant as this, in the name of
God this Convention ought to be a perfect fail-
ure; we have come here on a fool's errand,
and ought to have masters over us. I find that
there are men every where, and that there are
gentlemen here who think that no man has com-
mon sense in judgment, that no man in a com-
munity can explain or understand a law unless,
perhaps, he has been studying the profession
with a sterile brain for five years, and then come
out armed capapie, like Minerva, to preside
over a court of justice. William Wirt said, and
said well, the Virginia Convention said, and said
well, that the best courts they ever had in Vir-
ginia, for sixty years, were those courts made
by the old magistrates. No one of them had
been educated in a temple; no one of them had
perhaps ever read a black letter, but their de-
cisions stood higher and better in Virginia than
those of any other court in the State. There-
fore I am in favor of the gentleman's proposi-
tion. I know a man in my county who has had
so many law suits that he has acquired as much
experience as one half of the lawyers, and is a
better lawyer than one half of the bar of Fred-
erick. I would take him to be the Judge; but
let the people judge of that. Is the man who
idles away his time, and who has been two
years in a law office, and five years advertising |
for practice, and gets none, fit to preside over the
circuit or orphans' courts? But I leave that to
the people. I care not what their salary may
be; even give them the very lowest allowance.
There are in Baltimore county and elsewhere,
retired, many good lawyers who have retired on
their money. They have made very large for-
tues and high reputations, and they would ac-
cept those offices as a matter of amusement.
As Madison said when he retired, employ me
as a magistrate, that I may be employed. Is
there no patriotism? Have we got to that point
where money, and money alone, is an induce-
ment to office? Have we got to that point
when we must turn out one set of judges and
see whether a man is or is not a member of the
bar, and then select him to preside over the af-
fairs of the court? You may make it a per diem
allowance, and enlarge the present Orphans'
Court system with little alteration. Then I go
fur the proposition of the gentleman from Prince
George's county, and will give it a ready and
cheerful vote. I voted for the proposition of
the gentleman from Washington county, (Mr.
Michael Newcomer.) but I am willing to divide,
to lessen the duties of the district judges. I am
willing to vote for this proposition, and I trust
whoever and whatever men the people may
select in their counties. I will trust them with
chancery jurisdiction, for if they make an error
the Court of Appeals can correct it. I with-
draw my amendment.
Mr. BROWN. I think we have used this rule
so much that it is pretty well worn out. I move
the previous question, and hope it will be
seconded.
The previous question was then seconded, and
the main question ordered, viz; "Will the Con-
vention adopt the substitute offered by Mr.
Bowie for the 10th section of the report"
Mr. BOWIE asked that the question be taken
by yeas and nays, which were ordered, and be-
ing taken, were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Dalrym-
ple, Bond, Bowie, Spencer, Johnson, Kilgour
and Anderson—13.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Sellman, Howard, Buchanan, Lloyd Dickinson,
John Dennis, J. U. Dennis, Crisfield, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Cham-
bers, of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
McCubbin, Grason, George, Wright, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart, of
Balt. city, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of
Balt. city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Niell, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Da-
vis, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Holliday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—-65.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the 10th section as an article of the Constitution.
Mr. KILGOUR asked the yeas and nays, which |
