the habit is to try appeals without argument, and
I know a judge, in one of the county districts,
before whom I sometimes practice, who usually
makes short work of the appeal docket. He of
course tries the cases well, but with great expe-
dition. I mean the Chief Justice Dorsey.
Mr. SPENCER. In our court they allow one
lawyer to speak on a side.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I believe this is the practice
in some of the courts, but in the county courts
generally I think they are able to run through
the appeals in one or two days. But whether
the appeals take a long or a short time to try,
my point is that we have the labor to perform in
the country as well as in the city
[Here the President's hammer fell ]
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore city. I renew
the motion. The idea seems to be entertained
extensively here, that the proposition to organize
an equity court of Baltimore city, (by which
name I propose to call it, when we come to that
point,) is to be regarded as antagonistic to the
existing chancery court of the State of Mary-
land. in that matter, as in all other matters,
I am entirely willing that our friends of the
counties should arrange for themselves any sys-
tem which they desire. We look to this as in-
dispensable, and as an independent equity court
for the city of Baltimore. I beg to say here,
(and I am sufficiently well understood by the
Convention as not to be supposed to be using it
in the way of menace or alarm,) that I have the
most profound anxiety with regard to the ratifi-
cation of the labors of this Convention by the
people, when they come to pass upon its action.
I desire that public agitation shall be delayed.
I do not desire that the questions that have been
opened in reference to the propriety or expe-
diency of a Convention shall again be discussed,
with all the new elements of excitement of which
in the future these questions may be compounded.
Sound as my city is to the very core, careful
as she will he, with all her power and influence,
to guard and cherish every possible interest
of the state over which she may desire to extend
protection, I desire to settle flow, by some wise
organic law, the agitation which has existed in
the state of Maryland, so that we may meet
together in the halls of legislation, and no longer
in the halls of a Convention, to reorganize, time
and again, the great fundamental law under
which we have lived, and by the prosperous ad-
ministration of which we are to thrive and in-
crease in honor and glory. With this object in
view, I have to say to this Convention that there
is no subject before our people more interesting
to them than this subject of Judicial reform,—
If this Convention, in its judgment, has chosen
to say, in reference to the question of represen-
tation, that they will not concede to us a larger
number than they have given us, I bow, and in
the spirit and with the motive of compromise,
cheerfully bow to that decision, looking to the
grand objects to be accomplised by the desire of
harmony which pervaded their action on that
subject. When we come to look at this ques-
tion, I ask that the public mind of the city of
Baltimore may not be fretted with any opinion
74 |
of injustice done to them in that which I look
to as the most important part of the structure
we are here to erect.
I have before said that I did not regard the
establishment of a court of chancery in Balti-
more city as antagonistic to the chancery court
at Annapolis. How did this bill come upon
your table? Why, the present chairman of the
committee, (Mr. Morgan)—every member of
the judiciary committee—have in solemn form
presented to you the result of their anxious
deliberations, and have said to you—I care not
whether speaking by their own experience—I
care not whether they had before their faces
the vision of the twenty-five hundred cases oil
the chancery docket, or whether speaking, as
they are bound to speak, in obedience to the
voices of their constituents—they have told you
that they thought, and you confirmed it by your
vote of yesterday, that the chancery court ought
to be abolished.
Mr, BUCHANAN. I beg to ask the honorable
gentleman a question—if he consented to the
report of the Judiciary Committee?
Mr. STEWART. By no means, as an entirety.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I should like to know if the
gentleman did not oppose the county court system?
Mr. STEWART, I did, sir.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Does he make any objec-
tion to us who dissented from that report?
Mr. STEWART. Certainly not, sir. I claim
the privilege myself, and therefore concede it
to others.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I should like to know if
Messrs. Randall, Morgan, and myself did not
oppose, in committee, the abolition of the chan-
cery court?
Mr. STEWART. Whatever my friend says I
will adopt. I have no recollection about it. I
am speaking of the bill. I say that when we
came to the 25th section, we came upon the
conclusion of the bill, that the chancery court
should he abolished. That is presented to the
deliberate action of this body by the report of
the committee.
Mr. MORGAN. I remind the gentleman of the
conditions contained in that bill—that the court
of chancery shall be abolished in five years,
when the unfinished business is to revert to the
several counties and the city of Baltimore, to-
gether with the whole system contained in the
bill.
Mr. STEWART. My position is still main-
tained. The committee did recommend the
abolition of the court, but they put it in liquida-
tion, and gave it five years to wind up.
I do not regard it as an antagonistical propo-
sition. You can ask for any thing for the coun-
ties. I believe I represent, in that respect, my
colleagues, and the wishes and feelings of the
city of Baltimore. Although we have not ex-
press instructions, they are implied. I am wil-
ling to concede, in the fullest and largest meas-
ure, according to the wants and wishes of the
counties. I desire to speak in regard to what
we claim as a right in Baltimore.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I would like to ask my- |
