ent associate judges are employed so small a
portion of their time. In correcting this evil,
we ought to be cautious in attempting to abolish
courts that are absolutely necessary. It is pro-
posed to abolish the high court of chancery, be-
cause it is expensive; but the chancellor's salary
is nothing in comparison with the advantage of
having a competent tribunal for the trial of
equity cases. The question is not whether a
system is expensive, but whether it is necessary
to the proper administration of justice. Liber-
ty and justice are expensive, and can only be
secured by providing the necessary means.
Equity jurisdiction is to be vested in the circuit
courts, as it now is in the county courts; and it
is important to continue the high court of chan-
cery so as to prevent the accumulation of equity
business in the courts of law. At present, suit-
ors may choose between these courts, and select
whichever is most likely to decide a case in the
most expeditious and satisfactory manner. The
most important cases will be carried to the
chancellor, while simple and ordinary business
will be transacted in the circuit courts. It is
true that very little chancery business is brought
to Annapolis from the western counties, but in
other parts of the State the equity cases have
been constantly accumulating, and could not be
properly attended to, if the duties and business
of the chancellor were transferred to the circuit
courts. If the chancery court, and the equity
jurisdiction of the local courts be continued, the
business of all will become more equal, because
if it accumulates in one, new cases will be taken
to the other. But it is important to continue
the present chancery system for another rea-
son.
It is a common opinion that any good lawyer
is qualified to be an equity judge; but the rules of
proceedings and evidence are so different in courts
of law from those in courts of equity, that a
judge well qualified to preside in one, would find
it necessary to commence a new course of study
to qualify himself for the other. Even Chancel-
lor Kent, with all his experience and ability as a
lawyer, declared in the New York Convention,
that it was not till several years after he was ap-
pointed a Chancellor, that he became familiar
with chancery proceedings. How then can it be
expected, that all the judges of the Circuit Courts,
however respectable they may be, will be com-
petant to decide in cases of equity? In case of
incompetency in a circuit court, parties may re-
sert to the high court of chancery; which, as now
organized, is equal to any in the Union; for the
Chancellor, Auditor and Register, are all distin-
guished for capacity, and unremitting attention to
their duties. If this court is abolished, the chance-
ry business of the State Will be divided among
eight district courts of law, all more or less in
competent, and governed by different and con-
flicting rules and decisions. At present, parties
have their choice between inexperienced tribu-
nals, and a court that is distinguished through-
out the Union for its ability and impartiality.
Shall we destroy a court of this description, mere-
ly to save the salary of a judge, and transfer its
jurisdiction to incompetent courts of law, which |
will require double the time to decide a case in
equity, and then perhaps decide it incorrectly.
Mr. DORSEY remarked that he would not
make a motion merely to have an opportunity
of introducing remarks not otherwise authorized
before this body, intending then to withdraw it;
for he considered it an evasion of the order. He
moved to insert the word "of" after "undis-
posed," in the last line but one, so as to read
"undisposed of and unfinished," which is neces-
sary to make English or seme of it.
He had had some connection with the different
county courts in this State, which have under-
taken to transact equity business, and he must
say that the interests of the clients are frequent-
ly most seriously endangered if not sacrificed by
the manner in which proceedings are brought
before the appellate courts. He conceived it to
be his bounden duty to say, if you wish to pre-
serve any judicial system, to have separate ju-
risdiction between law and equity, retain the
chancery court as absolutely indispensable. He
was satisfied that our chancery system is one of
the best in the Union. Let him come from what
part of the State he might, he would believe that
he was doing great injustice to that part of the,
State which he represented, if he should, for
one moment, consent to the destruction of
that court. It is not only for the benefit
of the judge in the appellate court, but of
the solicitors in the chancery court, for they
receive aid and assistance from the chancellor
when they come into the chancery court. The
chancellor sees the effect of their proceedings,
and knows what ought to be introduced and
what ought to be stricken out. He kindly sug-
gests to them what they ought to know for the
benefit of their clients He had no personal in-
terest in this subject; but gave his vote accord-
ing to his observation and experience, were it
the last act of his life, he would vole to retain
the chancery court in our judicial system.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved to amend
the 25th section by striking out in the 3d, 4th
and 5th lines, these words: "nor shall any cause
be removed from any other court in the State
to the said court of chancery from and after said
ratification."
Mr. BRENT. What is to become of these
cases? I tell you, Mr. President, that these old
cases sleeping in the county courts, are sleeping
in the tomb of the Capulets. It will take the
hand of resurrection to resuscitate them. With
my own knowledge, after the cases have arrived
at a certain antiquity, very many of the county
court lawyers entirely give them up and will not
look after them. I have had cases put into my
hands for removal to the high court of chancery
where all the original parties were dead, and
where all the original lawyers were dead. The
judges are averse to look at them, and there is
a very good reason for it, which will continue
to exist under the new constitution. A great
many judges are farmers who regard their ju-
dicial labors as a secondary matter. The great
object with them is to try the jury cases, which
are the most urgent, interesting, pressing and |
