There are, also, four terms in this court, which
very much expedite the business. It does seem
to me that the period even of five years is not sufficient.
Now, with regard to the business done in this
court from various parts of the State, I beg leave
to call the attention of the convention to some
further facts.
The number of chancery suits from the city of
Baltimore, in this court for the last five years, has
been 521. That city has now performed in the
court of chancery most of its chancery business.
Anne Arundel and other counties of thin district
have performed nearly all their business here.
You have already fixed upon eight judicial dis-
tricts, upon the assumption that this very chancery
jurisdiction was to continue to perform its
functions within this State.
If you abolish the chancery court, you must
add, one of the counties now of this district to
some other district, else you have in the district
more duty than any one judge can perform.
Then, when you abolish this court, you throw
into the districts a vast amount of old business
from the chancery court, which must obstruct
the progress of the courts, and prevent your new
system having a fair trial.
The committee on the judiciary have taken as
the basis for the districting of the state, the
amount of business now done in the county
courts respectively in the state. They have not
taken into their consideration the business done
in the court of chancery; and hence it will
readily appear that if we throw back upon the
county courts the business heretofore transacted
by the court of chancery, we shall take away
the very foundation upon which your system now
organized has been established.
As to the expense of this court to the state of
Maryland: the expense of this court is about
$900 a year to the state of Maryland, It receives
from court taxes upon commissions, &c., about
$2,100, which it pays annually into the state
treasury, thus reducing the only expense) the
salary of the chancellor, $3,000, to the sum of
about $900—as before stated.
These sums would not, probably, be paid into
the treasury, but for the facilities which this
court affords the public. Business is frequently
done or not done according to these facilities
afforded him in its transaction.
If a man finds that his suit will lie tied up for
years, he will not enter into it at all. He will
deny himself the advantages it might bring to
him, rather than await a tardy decree.
Generally the power exists to remove cases
from the county courts to the court of chancery.
Parties and solicitors find that they
cannot have performed chancery business in
the county courts of this state; hence these
laws for removal of causes. And if the county
courts could not perform this duty when they
had eighteen judges who might be engaged in its
performance, how can they do so with the pro-
vision now made, with only eight judges? There
are also great advantages you now have which
you .will not have in the new system. The
judges now living in most of your counties fa- |
cilitate very much the transaction of chancery
business in the respective counties, especially
in their chambers at their homes
Now you have decided that there shall be only
eight judges in the state of Maryland. These
eight judges have all the business of law and
equity to transact; and unless you had Some
court like this to fall back upon for relief, when
the courts of law and equity are crowded, you
will find your whole system, to use a common
phrase, work badly, and out of gear. You would
find all your courts so hindered and obstructed
as to be unable to proceed.
The certainty of that uniform system of equity
which a central court of chancery establishes is
very important, and can be attained by it alone.
Those gentlemen from different parts of the State
who have spoken of the efficiency with which the
business of the chancery court is transacted now
by its learned, talented, and indefatigable chan-
cellor, have done no more than justice to this
court and to its officers. In this whole equity ju-
risdiction you are now making an experiment at
a fearful hazard; for you find that these courts
have not been able hitherto to transact their
law business and discharge the equity business
before them, but the Legislature has had to pass
laws for the removal of their equity suite to the
chancery court. When the judges are now reduced
more than one half, how can those duties
be performed? Is it wise to run this risk of great
public losses when the sole object to be obtained
is to save a few hundred dollars ?
It is true that this court performs its duties qui-
etly in this small city, where few are aware of its
existence, except in the benefits it confers upon
them; and that may be a reason why it has not
had that popularity which it really merits with
our citizens at large. It has none of the append-
ages by which publicity is effected and popularity
is to be obtained. No jurors or witnesses filling
its hall, or exciting criminal trials thronging it
with the curious crowd. But the just, patient,
constant, and prompt transaction of the very in-
tricate and important business of that court will
continue to commend it to all who are engaged
in its practice, and to others acquainted with its
merits.
As my ten minutes are nearly expiring, I will
withdraw the motion which I have submitted, and
will move that the time for closing up the business
of the court be extended to eight years, upon
which motion I believe I am entitled to ten minutes
more. [Laughter.]
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore, rained the question
of order, whether it was competent thus to make
a second motion.
After some conversation upon which,
Mr. RANDALL withdrew his second amendment,
and renewed the amendment, extending the time
to ten years.
The question being taken upon the amendment,
it was rejected.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER withdrew his amend-
ment,
Mr. GRASON said: There is a disposition to
reduce the number of judges, because the pres- |
