I wish to stand upon substantial ground. I am
not willing to procure the defeat of it, by refusing
to a portion of the people of the State, an
amount of judicial labor necessary to transact
their business.
There is another view taken of it. Some seem
to think that if you grant a court of chancery to
Baltimore city, you give to it a privilege which is
not enjoyed by other portions of the State. What
have you provided for other portions of the State?
The system we have devised is sufficient for the
transaction of business in the counties. A single
judge for St, Mary's county and Somerset county
is clothed with the same power which we intend
to give to this tribunal in the city of Baltimore.
There is no difference. There is adivision of la-
bor, but no judicial power is proposed to he given
to the city courts which is not conceded to the
counties.
I have heard it suggested that this court of
chancery fur Baltimore city will concentrate to
itself all the powers of the high court of chancery.
But what is the power which it is intended to
give to this court of chancery? It is nothing more
than the equity power which is now exercised
by the Baltimore county court. The court pro-
posed can entertain jurisdiction of no cases except
those which arise in the city of Baltimore. Balti-
more county court exercises the same jurisdic-
tion, and so with the Somerset county court. In
the system which I proposed, all these judicial
duties are intended to be given to four judges.
The difference between the gentlemen from Balti-
more city and myself is, that they parcel out the
jurisdiction, giving the equity jurisdiction to one,
the common law jurisdiction to another, and the
criminal jurisdiction to another. I was for concentrating
it all, and giving it to the four judges
altogether. There is no privilege given to the
city more than is given to every county.
I warn my friends of the counties not to get
up a hostility between the city and counties upon
such a proposition. I think they cannot defend
themselves upon it. No man will charge me with
favoritism to the city of Baltimore. I have given
upon questions under debate in this house, the
strongest and most conclusive evidence of my
feelings towards that city, and my fears of the
power she might concentrate to herself. But I
can see in this proposition no danger to the counties,
and nothing to induce me to withhold the
supply of judicial labor necessary for the dispatch
of business in that city, promptly and efficiently.
I think this proposition ought to pass. I with-
draw the motion to postpone.
Mr. BROWN. Motions to postpone indefinitely
seem to have great favor with gentlemen.—
I have a favorite motion too. I move the previous
question.
Mr. MORGAN hoped the gentleman would
withdraw it for the purpose of allowing him to
make a personal explanation.
Mr. BROWN assented, and withdrew the mo-
tion for the previous question.
Mr. MORGAN. I make a motion to postpone
the subject indefinitely. My friend from Somerset
county, if I understood him in reference
to this matter, appeals to his friends from the |
counties not to be misled in reference to the
motions I have made to strike out a chancellor
for the city of Baltimore. He says that he thinks
it improper to draw such an issue, and that he
has adopted the view of my friend from Baltimore
city, who holds this hydra over us, that if
you do not give to Baltimore city every thing
she asks, she will reject the constitution. I can.
tell my friend that I had no such intention here;
I never dreamed of such a thing.
Mr. CRISFIELD. My friend from St. Mary's
will allow me to say that no part of my remarks
was intended for him. I have no doubt he made
the motion honestly, believing that the judges
were unnecessary.
Mr. MORGAN. I do believe so. The gentleman
says that it is necessary that Baltimore city
should have these judges. How necessary? That
is the question to be addressed to this Conven-
tion. Necessary only because you have abol-
ished the chancery court. That is the only
way in which this judge, that is claimed by my
friend from Somerset, became necessary for
the city of Baltimore. My friend from Balti-
more told you, when he addressed this body,
that if the chancery court should be retained
here, two judges would be sufficient to transact
the business of Baltimore city.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. The civil
business.
Mr. MORGAN. Yes, the civil business. Then
a chancery court becomes necessary for Balti-
more city, only because you have abolished that
office here. Then comes the argument I have
addressed fifty times to this convention. Why
is it necessary to abolish the chancery court
here which transacts the business of the whole
State, to render another necessary in the city
of Baltimore? That was my only reason for
moving to strike the section out. My friend has
remarked that we do not give to Baltimore that
which is denied to other parts of the State. I
differ with him there. This equity jurisdiction
is denied to other portions of the State, and in
carrying out that, you but carry out the system
introduced by my friend from Somerset, and
which has been adopted—that is, that the two
systems of common law and equity should be
blended in the same judge. That is the system
which we have in the counties. Hence it is, to
detail the duties which the county judges dis-
charge that it becomes necessary to reconsider
this vote now. That was all I had to say. I
have no intention whatever of the description
mentioned by the gentleman from Somerset.
For my part, I vote upon principle I vote for
what I consider is beneficial to the people of
this State, without looking to the right or the
left, in reference to what may be the peculiar
opinions of one side or the other. I am not to
be frightened by the threats or intimidations of
certain sections of this State being brought into
opposition to this constitution. Have not the
people of the whole State a right to cast their
votes against this constitution upon the same
ground, if you take from the city of Annapolis a
court which is open to them at all times, and
transfer it to Baltimore city where its duties |
