one and the same thing all over Maryland.—
That is my principle. If we, after grave con-
sideration, have determined that the chancery
court and the common law court shall be blend-
ed in the counties, does not the same reason
apply to the city of Baltimore? I gave that
vote for blending them, because we are to re-
view our special pleading and the mode of prac-
tice in the courts; and I hope that those who
have the revision of the laws under their charge,
will try, if possible, to abolish many unmeaning
distinctions between common law and chancery
jurisdictions. If a party, in some cases under
our laws. will consent to employ a solicitor, he
may file a bill on the equity side of a county
court, and put his adversary to the necessity of
answering it, under oath, and avail himself of
the advantages of the testimony thus obtained
in the common law courts. In these cases
might not the law of the land be so changed as
to provide that whenever you have power to
put an adversary under oath, you may examine
him in open court. There may be a controver-
sy about mortgage. At present, you must go
into a court of chancery, file your bill, and pay
large fees before you can foreclose a mortgage.
Could we not devise some plan by which you
can issue a scire facias, and call in the party to
show whether they will permit the mortgaged
property to be sold or not?
I say that the reason why I voted against a sep-
arate chancery court for the city of Baltimore,
was that I desired to blend jurisdictions and
practices now unnecessarily separated, I desired
the same judge to preside in the chancery court
who presided in the common law courts. If
this is right all over Maryland, it must be right
in the city of Baltimore. As to giving the city of
Baltimore courts sufficiently numerous and com-
petent to perform all of the duties which may
be required of them, I am the last man to give
a vote against any such proposition. If one
court is not enough, I will give two; if two
courts are not enough, I will give them three.
Looking to the rapidity with which Baltimore
city is increasing, I am willing to give the power
to the legislature to create an additional court
when that city needs it. I want the system symmetrical
all over Maryland. I would prefer divi-
ding the city of Baltimore into two circuits. The
gentlemen of that city, though, seem to prefer
that they should have a superior court and an
inferior court, one having jurisdiction oversums
of a certain amount, and another having juris-
diction over sums under that amount. I have
no objection to that. I think the gentleman
from Cecil (Mr. McLane) could suggest a plan
which might meet the concurrence of the House,
and that it will be prepared and offered.
I rose for the purpose of repudiating the idea
that I could be influenced in my vote in organ-
izing the courts of the city of Baltimore, by any
particular vote that might have been cast by her
delegates for or against the abolition of the
court of chancery. I am obliged to withdraw
my motion to postpone, but I express the hope
that the President will review his decision, and
will either confine us to the rule, or recommend |
its abolition, so that any gentleman may participate
in the discussion without resorting to a
motion which is made to be withdrawn.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I am like the
gentleman from Frederick. I thought we were
confined to the rule adopted, but finding other
gentlemen using this practice, I use it myself,
and more particularly because this question involves
the rights of my constituents, I there-
fore renew the motion to postpone. I wish to
state what I suppose to be the proposition of
the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spen-
cer,) which, with all due respect to that gentle-
man. I consider indefensible. What does he
propose to do? To give Baltimore city two
judges to transact the civil business. Every one
of the Baltimore city delegation knows that this
number is not sufficient. But what is the reme-
dy? He does not even refer it to the Legislature
to increase the number of judges or the number
of courts, except the police court, I think one
judge may do a great deal of business. But the
Legislature is merely required to establish a
police courts by the amendment of the gentle-
man from Queen Anne's. If we adopt the pro-
position, the result will be disastrous indeed, as
there can be no amendment to the constitution
for ten years, and not then unless a convention
is called. Then we would have to depend upon
legislative action to get another court, and yet
no power is left to the Legislature. I can never
believe that a hill to call another Convention
will pass the Legislature for the next twenty or
fifty years. If we do not get through the Legis-
lature a bill calling a Convention, or if the peo-
ple do not choose to call a Convention, whatever
might be the grievances in Baltimore city, what
is the result? Why, for all time to come, or
until another Convention is called to change the
constitution, Baltimore city is to have hut two
civil judges, with her growing population and
increasing business.
I call upon this Convention to look not merely
to the dockets, but to the importance of the
business of Baltimore city, the wealth that passes-
through her courts, and the amount of protracted
litigation which is necessary to discharge its
business. I look to the fact that in the next ten
years our population will increase in as great 3
ratio as it has for the past ten years. Would
the plan we advocate increase the expenses of
the judiciary of Baltimore? I conceive not.
The idea is that if we vote for a separate court
of chancery for Baltimore city, we will be
driven back upon the high court of chancery.
I do not see that this follows. We ought to
have a system of jurisprudence peculiar to our
great commercial city. I do not see any reason,
because the abolition of the high chancery courts
that we should not have a court of chancery for
our purposes, or at least judges enough, who, if
separated, can attend to our demands, if a pro-
position is made, such as I believe the gentle-
man from Frederick (Mr. Thomas) indicated, I
am prepared to vote for it; but I will not con-
sent myself here to vote or acknowledge in this
body that our civil business can be transacted
by less than three judges. I am opposed to the |
