nanimous delegates from Baltimore city, whose
names I was astonished to hear recorded on
that question.
Mr. BRENT. Will the gentleman please to
inform me in what respect the "magnanimous
delegates from Baltimore city" are inconsist-
ent?
Mr. MORGAN. In wishing to take from us a
court in which we now have jurisdiction, and to
establish it in Baltimore city, where you give
jurisdiction to yourselves, and not to us. I did
expect, certainly, that a different course might
have been pursued. This is the issue which is
brought home to us. Now, I have no objection
to giving Baltimore city this equity jurisdiction,
or this Chancellor. But when equity jurisdic-
tion has been denied us in the counties; when
you have given us but one judge instead of
three; when you compel us to go, a hundred
miles, in some instances, to obtain that judge, I
do not see why the same system which operates
upon the counties should not operate also upon
the city. The gentleman from Baltimore city
has said that the number of judges is not chosen
in reference to this system. But is it not
carrying out the system established throughout
the whole State? in my circuit we have but
one judge. You have taken our three judges,
and required them to transact almost half the
business of the State, for you only have seven
in the State. That is the way the system oper-
ates in the counties, to the confusion of equity
and common law jurisdiction, and yet when we
come to apply the vote to Baltimore city, we
are told that they should have what they claim,
because no more judges are required than under
the old system. When Charles county and St,
Mary's were put into one judicial district, that
argument was not good; but it seems that the
argument is good when applied to Baltimore
city. The old system has been exploded—
carry out the new to city and county alike.
I hope that the Convention will stand by the
report of its committee. Some gentlemen here
are opposed to giving Baltimore city more than
one court. I am willing that she should have
two, for I think her necessities require it, I
am willing to stand by sections 11 and 12, which
were drawn up with a view to the wants and
necessities of Baltimore city. If you strike out
the chancery court in Baltimore city, you then
have two courts in that city to do that which
one is now doing. That is what is proposed in
the bill. Sections 11 and 12 give the court of
common pleas and the court of superior juris-
diction, where before they had but one. The
question now is, whether, having afforded them
twice the facility to transact their business un-
der this system that we did under the old, that
is not a sufficiency. Is it not a competency,
when they have a separate organization in ref-
erence to their orphans' court? when they have
a court devoted entirely to all cases up to $500,
and another devoted to cases rising above $500?
when they have two courts to discharge the
business now discharged by one? In view of
the system which we have adopted throughout |
the State, and in view of the pledges which
gentlemen have made in reference to this chancery
court, I do not see how we can possibly
reconsider. I was originally opposed to the
plan adopted by this Convention, but it has
pleased it to think differently, and I am now bat
carrying out the action of the Convention, and
therefore concur with my friend from Baltimore
city in reference to this blending of chancery
and common law jurisdiction. I know the evils
of the system. I know that it would possibly
have been better to have separated them in this.
particular. But do we not know that the coun-
ty courts groan under the same evils? Do we
separate them elsewhere? Is your system to be.
one thing in one part of the State, and a differ-
ent thing in another part of the State? You
have given to us this blended jurisdiction, with
all the imperfections which the people have
groaned under so long. Now let that system
remain equal upon all parts of the State, and
intact. Let the system be carried out for the
whole people alike, and let us not make a dis-
tinction between one part of the State and an-
other part of the State. I withdraw the motion
to postpone.
Mr. BRENT. I renew the motion. It is very
extraordinary that we should be accused of want
of liberality, for doing in our own city what we
are perfectly willing to do for other parts of the
state. Have we not voted to give to the counties
courts of common law and chancery jurisdiction?
Have we asked for any thing more for Baltimore
than we have voted to give to the counties? But
the proposition has been voted down, A motion
is made to reconsider. I shall vote for the re-
consideration. I care not what name you give
the court; all we want is the substance. "Arose
by any other name would smell as sweet.'"
We need another court; and if we vote for the
Constitution at all, we mean to have it. Where-
is there any want of liberality or consistency?
The want of liberality is, I presume, the refusal
to give a court of chancery to the whole state.
We shall suffer just as much as the counties in
this respect. It the high court of chancery is to
be continued, and the county courts are to have
chancery jurisdiction also, the people of Balti-
more ought equally to participate in the benefit.
But I shall not vote for concurrent or double
jurisdiction. Baltimore cannot do with less than
three judges for her civil business.
With regard to the division of these courts,
the damages claimed in the declaration deter-
mine the jurisdiction, as reported in the bill. If
they are over $500, the case goes to the higher
court; if under $500, to the other. But if the.
judge of the higher court is more popular and
obliging, men who do not expect to recover $200,
will claim $500, in order to go before the higher-
court. I am opposed to it. The only tree way-
is to divide the docket between them. I with-
draw the motion to postpone.
Mr. B. here read the amendment which he
should introduce, if the motion to reconsider
should not prevail. |
