which has been practiced under in the courts of
the United States for the last sixty years, and in
the construction of which there never has arisen
the slightest difficulty. It is strange that, with
the decisions of that court to guide us in the
construction of the clause, that we should talk
about the novelty of an amendment. I cannot
comprehend such a course of argument. I with-
draw the motion to postpone.
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore city, withdrew
the amendment submitted by him, stating that
he intended it as an amendment to the 13th sec-
tion, and not to the one under consideration,
the 11th.
Mr. SPENCER then offered as a substitute for
the 11th section of the report the following :
"There shall be in the city of Baltimore
three courts, one to be called the common law
court, the other the equity court, and the other
the criminal court, with one judge to each ;
provisions may be made by law for the estab-
lishment of a police court."
Mr. SPENCER. By a vote which has been re-
cently had by this Convention, it would seem
that it has determined that there shall not be a
court of equitable jurisdiction exclusively for
the city of Baltimore, and that more than three
courts should be allowed to her.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. including
the criminal judge.
Mr. SPENCER. Including the criminal judge.
I have offered this proposition as a test vote.
I have not undertaken, in the amendment, to
carry out any details, the jurisdiction, the mode
Of electing the judges, &c. My purpose is to
know if the Convention has determined to give
but three courts to the city of Baltimore. I am
still in favor of giving a district equity court.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand that the gen-
tleman's proposition provides for a judge of the
Common law court, a judge of the chancery
court, and a judge of the criminal court. I
shall vote for it.
Mr. SPENCER. There was a remark which
fell from my friend over the way, in relation to
which I intended to make a personal explana-
tion; but my friend from Carroll called for the
previous question, and prevented me from so
doing. I said, yesterday, that the committee
on the judiciary had unanimously reported in
favor of abolishing the chancery court. I say
that now. It is true there was a portion of the
committee who dissented from that report; yet
at the time the report was made there was not
a member of the committee who objected, so
far as my knowledge went, to the abolition of
the chancery court. At least no such dissent
was signified here in this hall. There were
gentlemen in the Convention who, when the
vote was taken upon the abolition of the court,
did vote against it. But it having been carried,
there was a general acquiescence in the report
made in this behalf, as he (Mr. S.) understood.
Mr. RANDALL. I would inquire of the gen-
tleman if it was not agreed, by, every member
of the Convention, that this report should be
made, and that no member of the Convention |
should be bound by any thing in that report, in
his action in the Convention?
Mr. SPENCER. Just the reverse. The gentleman
and myself, and one or two more, wholly
dissented from the report. But a majority of
the committee, according to my recollection,
agreed that the report should be made, as their
report, as well as the report from the chairman.
Mr. MORGAN. I agreed that the report should
be made, I understood, as my friend from
Anne Arundel, (Mr, Randall,) that every gentleman
should come in here, and should have a
right to offer any objections to the report which
he chose. This is also the recollection of my
friend from Kent, Mr. Ricaud. In reference
to the abolition of the chancery court, I did vote
for the abolition of it, in committee, as proposed
in that bill, under the conditions therein contain-
ed, because it was impossible to retain it in com-
mittee as a court of original jurisdiction.
Mr. SPENCER was about to proceed with his
remarks, when
The PRESIDENT announced that the ten minutes
allowed by the rule had expired.
Mr. BRENT, of Charles. I move to postpone
the further consideration of this report, and my
only object in doing so, is to be in order while I
make a single remark. I happen to be a mem-
ber of the judiciary committee. I have heard it
more than once stated here by gentlemen, that
the members of that committee were pledged to
sustain the several propositions reported in the
bill now under consideration. This is a mistake.
The majority of that commitee consented to the
report of the bill, with the view of bringing the
subject of the judiciary before the Convention,
with the understanding that each one had full
liberty to sustain or not, upon this floor, its seve-
ral parts. I make these remarks, that it may
not be again said the members of that committee
are pledged to the support of this bill. I with-
draw the motion to postpone.
Mr. SPENCER. The gentleman will allow me
one word. I submit to the Convention, if it is
air, when lam in the midst of a statement, be-
ore my statement is made to the Convention, on
a matter personal with regard to what took place,
that my statement should be intercepted half-
way? I can say that, although it was understood
that certain gentlemen reserved the right to do
as they pleased when they came in here, yet I
say, in reference to the subject matter of the
report, that it was agreed, by a majority of the
committee, that it should be presented as their
report, and that the committee were generally
in favor of the abolition of the chancery court,
Mr. BRENT, of Charles. My remarks were
not designed to refer so much to the remarks of
the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spen-
cer,) as to those which have been made by
others in this Convention. I only desired to
place the members of the Committee in their
true position, and am pleased to see that a ma-
jority of the members of that committee assent
to my statement. In reference to the court of
chancery, I will state that I favored in commit-
tee the plan of abolishing it—provided a separate
judge, with chancery as well as common law |
