Mr. SPENCER. I am unwilling to sit in my
seat and hear sentiments expressed which, al-
though not so intended, have a tendency to do
injustice. I wish to call the attention of the
gentleman who has charge of this bill, (Mr.
Morgan,) to one thing. He finds fault with a
portion of this Convention, who have voted to
abolish the chancery court. Does the gentleman
remember that the judiciary committee reported
in favor of the abolition of this very court; and
that upon that subject there was an entire una-
nimity and concurrence in the report to be made
by the committee. In all the meetings of that
committee, so far as my knowledge extended,
there was but one individual who was in favor of
the continuance of the chancery judge. The
chancery court has been abolished by the vote of
this body. The gentleman from Somerset, (Mr.
Crisfield,) neither geographically nor politically
connected with the city of Baltimore, in any
form or shape, submitted a project with received
an overwhelming vote. That gentleman, and
those who voted with him, saw the necessity, in
districting the state, of leaving the city of Balti-
more separate and distinct from all the rest. If
any person is to be held responsible for the or-
ganization of the present system, for taking away
from the districts the three judges, and for
blending the chancery court, it is the gentleman
from Somerset, and those who voted with him,
and not the city of Baltimore.
Now, sir, it is a matter of expediency, and to
be considered by us, whether or not we will
adopt this district system. In some portions of
the state, two counties, and in other portions
four counties, have been thrown into one district.
I have not the slightest doubt that under this ar-
rangement the judges can perform all the work,
and will still be idle at least one-half of the year.
But Baltimore city has been left separate and
distinct. It is utterly and physically impossible
for any judge to perform the duties of a common
law court and of the chancery court in the city
of Baltimore, at the same time. We know it
from the present history of that court. We
should make provision for them according to
their necessities and their wants. If we do not
happen to be satisfied with the arrangement
made for the counties, is that any reason why we
shall do injustice to the city of Baltimore? I
appeal to members of this body, if it is not just
that they should have a chancery court, to ac-
commodate the vast amount of business of that
people. Look at their numerous trusts; at their
numerous investments of money; at the various
contracts constantly taking place. Look at the
records of the chancery court of that city, and
see how voluminous they are. I appeal to mem-
bers of this body, candidly to say whether that
city is not entitled to a distinct chancery court?
If it is not necessary to administer justice in that
city? As one of the committee on the judiciary,
I have no doubt that this is demanded in justice;
and I feel that it is my duty to vote to give the
city of Baltimore that court.
On motion of Mr. SMITH,
The Convention adjourned. |
WEDNESDAY, April 30th, 1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. Griffith.
The roll of the members was called.
The Secretary proceeded to read the journal,
and had read it in part only, when
On motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, the further
reading was dispensed with.
Mr. SELLMAN presented a petition of sundry
citizens of the third election district of Anne
Arundel county, praying a change in the license
system; which was read and referred to the
committee heretofore appointed on the subject.
MICHAEL NEWCOMER inquired of the chair
whether it would now be in order to offer an
amendment?
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER then offered the fol-
lowing order, upon which, he said, he demanded
the previous question:
Ordered, that the Convention take a recess
each day during the session, from two o'clock
until four o'clock P.M.
The order having been read,
The PRESIDENT put the question upon the de-
mand for the previous question; and the vote
stood ayes 26, noes 28.
So there was not a demand.
As the question therefore recurred on the
adoption of the order,
Mr. MORGAN moved to strike out the hour of
"two," and insert "three."
Mr. BUCHANAN, (to the chair.) Will an
amendment to the amendment be in order?
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
Mr, BUCHANAN. Then I desire to move an
amendment to this effect—that every gentleman
who votes for this proposition will stand pledged
to attend all the time.
Mr. MORGAN. Aye; but gentlemen will not
carry out the pledge. We have had experience
enough of that.
Mr. BUCHANAN. They ought to carry it out,
whether they do or not.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. Morgan; and being taken,
it was decided in the affirmative.
So the amendment was agreed to,
The question then recurred on the amendment.
of Mr, Buchanan; to wit:
Add to the end of the order the following:
words:
" Provided every member shall consider hill-
self pledged to remain from the opening to the-
closing of each session."
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, inquired of the
chair whether it would be in order to move to
lay the order upon the table ?
The PRESIDENT answered in the affirmative.
Mr. CHAMBERS made the motion.
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER asked the yeas and
nays upon it, which were ordered,
The roll was called.
When the name of Mr. SPENCER was called,
that gentleman rose and said: I am willing to
come here in the morning and stay until night,
but I will not vote for afternoon sessions. I |
