jurisdiction, was given to each county. My
views still remain unchanged. The state, how-
ever, has been divided into judicial circuits, and
the one judge system for each county rejected.
I believe it is now important, in this state of
things, to preserve this very valuable court
which is now administered by one of the ablest
and most distinguished lawyers of the state. It
is for this reason that I favor the retention of
the court of chancery, and shall vote for any
proposition looking to its continuance.
Mr. MORGAN. That, also, was my position.
Mr. SPENCER, When I referred to the views
of the committee, I think that my friend from
Charles could not have been in the House, oth-
erwise he would have understood me. I did
not refer to it for the purpose of implicating the
committee in any respects. I referred to it to
meet the argument of the gentleman from St.
Mary's. I understand the argument of that
gentleman to be, that as the members from Bal-
timore had abolished the High Court of Chan-
cery, he was unwilling to grant an equity court
to her.
Mr. MORGAN. I do not recollect making
such an argument.
Mr. SPENCER. That was my argument in
answer to him yesterday.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I rise to a question of order
I take the liberty of calling my friend to order,
inasmuch as he is referring to matters which
took place in the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Blakistone.)
The gentleman will reduce his point of order to
writing.
Mr. SPENCER. I say that I referred to no
matter in the committee room, until it was re-
ferred to by others. I stated that this bill came
in here by the entire approbation of the com-
mittee, at the time it was reported, upon the
subject of the chancery court. My motive in
referring to this matter, was to disabuse mem-
bers of the effect of the charge made against the
city of Baltimore on this subject.
Mr, BUCHANAN. I insist on my point of or-
der, which I have reduced to writing, in the
following words: "That it is out of order for
the gentleman from Queen Anne's) in debate
in the Convention, to refer lo the proceedings
that took place in the committee room."
Mr. SPENCER. I did not discuss such a prop-
osition.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I say it is out of order to
undertake to speak of what took place in the
committee.
Mr. SPENCER, The gentleman from Baltimore
county has been doing it all day. [Laughter.]
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I suppose I
can make a remark. Two wrongs do not make
a right. If it be a violation of parliamentary
law for members to speak of what took place
in the committee, and if members have violated
that law, I suppose it can be stopped.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of
the Chair, it is the duty of every member to
speak to the question before the House. As to |
whit took place in committee, it cannot be a
matter for the action of the House.
Mr. SPENCER. I had stopped referring to
any thing in the committee. I had said that I
never intended to refer to any thing in commit-
tee. I referred to the action of the committee
in this body from the first. I have a right to
refer to it, and I did refer to it. I say that when
that committee came into this body by their
chairman, they reported in favor of the aboli-
tion of the chancery court,
Mr. BUCHANAN. I call the honorable gentleman
to order. He is violating the decision of
the Chair.
Mr, SPENCER. I ask if it is out of order for
me to refer to the action of this body by its in-
dividual members, or by the body itself, for the
purpose of disabusing the public mind and this
body that the city of Baltimore is not answerable
for the abolition of the High Court of Chancery?
Is my mouth to be closed in this Conven-
tion? Am I not to be allowed to say that one
portion of this Convention is no more answera-
ble for the abolition of that court than the
other? When it is said that Baltimore city has
refused to do justice to the other portions of the
State—when it is said she has broken down the
high court of chancery by her action here, have
I not a right to refer to the proceedings of
the Convention to the blow given by the gentleman
from Somerset, and his friends acting with
him, to break down this system? I say I am
in order when I do this. This right I claim,
and so help me God, that right I will ever use!
I have been forced to say more than I in-
tended to—much more. I am sorry that the
subject had been introduced here. I was speak-
ing upon the character of the High Court of
Chancery. I was arguing that if we refused to.
give Baltimore city a chancery court, we would
be driven back to the High Court of Chancery
that we have abolished. It will necessarily fol-
low. I caution members of this body, who I
know have themselves advocated the abolition
of this court, as a matter of reform, how by
their votes they may oblige us to fall back upon
that very system which we have looked upon as
fraught with evil to the State, it is with this
view I offered my proposition.
The question was stated to be on the amendment
of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. THOMAS. I really think it a loss of per-
sonal dignity to practice under such a rule as
the chair has prescribed; yet I must move to
postpone the further consideration of this sub-
ject. I am forced to practice under this rule,
for I cannot sit still and hear all the argument
on one side, and reasons assigned for votes that
have no foundation. I came in here five min-
utes ago. I voted against giving the city of
Baltimore a separate chancery court. Does
any man suppose I gave that vote because the
Baltimore delegation abolished the high court
of chancery, or that I gave it because they did
not abolish it? Is it to he supposed that any
one will be influenced by such a motive? I
voted against it because I desired that our judicial
system should be symmetrical—should be |
