that court, where would you put this duty? Who
would be judge of that office? There must be
some one to attend to caveats under the escheats
law of the State, and other contested titles.
The gentleman from Queen Anne's (Mr. Grason)
told us yesterday that four hundred dollars
a year was paid to the judge of that office on the
Eastern Shore. We had been told that the late
chancellor Bland attended to that business for
the Western Shore, for which he was allowed
four hundred dollars, thus making eight hun-
dred, when, on the contrary, the present chan-
cellor did that business for nothing, and paid up-
wards of two thousand dollars a year from his
office into the treasury. So that, if the Conven-
tion abolished the court for the purpose of giving
an additional judge to Baltimore, with a salary
of twenty-five hundred dollars, also to create a
judge of the land office, at a salary of eight or
nine hundred dollars a year, the effect of it would
be to take $3,400 out of the treasury, instead of
not costing one cent to the State, when we look
to the additional duty performed under the pres-
ent system. These were the reasons which ac-
tuated him on yesterday in opposing the abolish-
ment of the court of chancery. But, sir, there
are higher reasons—
[Here the President's hammer fell, the time
of the gentleman having expired.]
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, observed that
he would claim the privilege of saying a few
words. First of all, as to the judicial district
composed of the counties of St. Mary's, Charles
and Prince George's. It had been said that Bal-
timore claimed three times that of any other dis-
trict in the state. The total population of those
counties, slave and free—white and black—was
only about 50,000, and a small fraction, whereas
that of Baltimore was 169,000, which was about
three times as much as the population of the
counties he had just named. Of course, that
went for nothing! Population was not even to
have the political influence belonging to them,
much less were they to have as much litigation
in proportion! So that, according to that argu-
ment, Baltimore was entitled to three times as
much as that district. There was another thing
worthy of consideration: it was this—that on
account of the great wealth and commercial en-
terprise in Baltimore city, there was an immense
amount of business created for the courts. Look
to the vast number of cases before them, of the
highest pecuniary and commercial importance.
Why, there was no judicial district In the state
to compare with it. No three of the districts
had as much property in litigation as Baltimore
alone. He would undertake to say that more
than half the time of the chancery court had been
occupied in the transaction of business from Bal-
timore city. And, if the whole of that business
was to be taken away from the chancery court,
and thrown back on the courts of Baltimore, it
would require an increased force to do the busi-
ness. He asserted that under the old system, a
great deal of business was done in Baltimore
county court, sitting as a court of equity. He
would undertake to say that one chancellor would |
have all his time occupied owing to the great
number of cases In Baltimore city before him.
And what did they want ? Why, nothing more
than the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Crisfield)
had proposed in his project.
Now, his friend (Mr. Buchanan) from Balti-
more county talks of two weeks only being oc-
cupied by the court on appeals in Baltimore city.
He (Mr. B.) would take issue with him. Ho
maintained that appealing had increased to an
Immense amount. There was to found on the
docket upwards of 180 cases in a term. It was
most important—it was most vital—and that
character of business generally affected the
poorest portion of the people; and they should
have justice administered to them as well and
as speedily as to the richest in the land. That
business was increasing every day. Another
fact he would state. His friend from Baltimore
county (Mr. Buchanan) undertook to make a
calculation, (and he would say, with all deference
to him, that it was erroneous,) in which he as-
sumed the expenses of the present Judiciary, but
had left out one of the judges of the orphans'
court. And in his calculation he had only given
us two judges, when there were three.
Mr, BUCHANAN, (in his seat.) That would make
a difference in my favor—that is, in favor of my
argument.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. Now, let us
see how that is. The gentleman had omitted one
judge of the orphans' court under the present sys-
tem. Why, that increased the expenses of the
present system. The boot was on the other leg.
Our object was to swell the expenses of the old
system by way of comparison with those of the
proposed system.
My friend omitted one judge, and that fact was
in my favor, and not, as he supposed, in his favor'
Again, he entirely overlooked the fees and perquisites
paid to the judges of Baltimore county
court, and which swelled the compensation of
each judge of the county courts to four or five
thousand dollars a year. Now, we have a system
proposed which did not, while It increased the
number of judges, at all increase the expense, but
it, in fact, saved thousands of dollars annually.
Now, how many judges were there under the
present system? Three in the county court. We
did not propose to increase the number, and in-
stead of having large salaries, we would give them
limited salaries. But there would be an immense
saving of expense. We had eight judges, and
three insolvent commissioners exercising judicial
functions in the city of Baltimore The business
of the Baltimore city courts had increased fearfully,
and yet it was proposed to take away the
court of chancery. Now, his friend said that
$90,000 were taken off by separating Baltimore
and Harford counties. Well, that was true. But
on the other hand, look at the increase of our
population since the last ten years—at least sixty
thousand—and the judiciary could not transact
all the business before them, and it had accumulated
to an immense extent, even with the aid of
the chancellor and the three judges of Baltimore
County court acting in separate departments; |
