to a participation in the profits of the concern
In consideration of his devotion of his time and
capacity, he is to share the earnings of the com-
pany. Well, business prospers, the firm make
large profits, the new partner grows rich, and as
sometimes happens, affluence sets him to covet
larger wealth. In process of time matters are
to be wound up, and the new partner, not satis-
fied with the large dividends of profit, claims
his full aliquot portion—his full seventh part—
of the million of dollars. Why surely the old
partners would say, and properly say, "you have
no sort of claim in conscience or equity to any
part of that sum which we alone contributed
long ago, perhaps before you came into the
world." It would be no satisfactory answer to
say "we are now seven, and of course equality
and equity require a division into seven parts,
of which one is due to me."
In his humble judgment there was no room to
complain of the justice or the propriety of the
distribution ordered by the Legislature, He
wished not to be misunderstood. The rule of
distribution which he sustained was only ap-
plied to this ancient, revolutionary, or rather
anti-revolutionary fund. He did not ask to ex-
tend it to later acquisitions. These were al-
ready differently distributed, and when the pro-
ceeds of the public works should be disposable
to such purposes, a different rule would govern
their appropriation. The Legislature, who had
provided that an especial exception should apply
to this ancient fund, perfectly knew what they
were about. They knew it was subject to pe-
culiar consideration; probably knew better than
we do the history of its origin; that it heretofore
belonged to the counties when those now of
small importance in population and wealth were
most populous and influential, and when those
now with immense population were weak and
feeble; when some of them had no existence;
when the city of Baltimore, now boasting her
one hundred and seventy thousand souls, was in
the predicament indicated by an anecdote which
this moment occurs to my recollection.
In the year 1809, said Mr. G., I was at Fred-
erick, returning with my father, then an old
man, from Hagerstown; for it was then the
work, and in winter hard work, of two days, to
get from Hagerstown to Baltimore. At Fred-
erick my father engaged in conversation with a
venerable old gentleman, whose locks were
white with the frost of many winters, and who
proved to be Mr. Grant, many years before the
respected keeper of the Light Street Hotel in
Baltimore, in which my father had been a guest.
They had many incidents to relate of gone-by
times and things. Amongst others, allusion was
made to some event, when the old gentleman
remarked, "That was when I could not venture
to ask the butcher to kill a beef until he could
go around and obtain the agreement of others to
purchase part, so as to prevent any part of it
spoiling on his hands." That was the condition
of Baltimore then—a single beef would
overstock the market. What a wonderful
change! At this day it was not only every beef
feared in the State which they consumed, but |
they were making continually inroads upon our
pasture fields, and seemed to regard all we had
as necessary for their well being.
When the gentleman from Frederick proposes
a rule of distribution, let him recollect that,
however just and equitable the rule may be in
itself, yet it is quite proper to consider whether
the fund belongs to those who propose to dis-
tribute it. Don't let him take my fund to appro-
priate it amongst his friends. In conclusion,
Mr. C. said he hoped the next vote instead of
being 51 to 11 would be 62 to—.
CHANCERY COURT.
Remarks of Mr. Chambers, April 30, 1851.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he would renew the motion to
enable him to say a few words. I take it for granted,
said he, that we are all anxious to do that which will
best gratify the interests of those concerned in the
proper administration of this branch of the government.
I may be mistaken, preconceived opinions
may have made arguments tell upon my mind, both
as lo their force and their directness, to an extent
not felt by others, but it does appear to me that what
has been said by the several gentlemen who have
given us the results of their observation and experience,
is calculated to impress us with a thorough
conviction that a chancery court is necessary. All
concur in this, and we are told that if the present
court of chancery is destroyed, another court of chan-
cery will be essentially necessary for the city of Baltimore.
It is also conceded by all. that the present
court of chancery does most admirably answer all
the ends of its creation, that the excellent officer
who presides over the court, is able and industrious
and prompt in the discharge of his duties, and that
business is transacted entirely to the satisfaction of
parties and solicitors and all who have an interest in
its operations. Now, Mr. President, is it prudent
under such circumstances to hazard a change? Is it
wise—nay, is it excusable to tear down a system
which has so long and so well effected its intended
objects, which now, by common consent, is doing all
that can be required; is it proper to tear down such
an institution merely to try an experiment with some
ether system, the practical operation of which is at
best mere matter of conjecture? You have not even
the prentence of economy, if as is said, we must
create another chancery court at Baltimore. The
salary of this last, must be as large us that of the
chancellor at Annapolis.
Then why not allow the present court to remain?
It is coeval with the government, we all understand
its duties and authority, we are all familiar with its
mode of proceeding; its organization ilcomplete, and
its appropriate jurisdiction exercised in the most salutary
and satisfactory manner. Can you expect to
do better? If not, why encounter the risk of doing
a great deal worse? Change without benefit is cer-
tainly not desirable, and rarely fails to produce seri-
ous mischief and sad disappointment. You do not
consult the pecuniary interest of the State, because
you are informed it will be absolutely necessary to
reconstruct the court and locate it in Baltimore, and
when created and located there, you are told by gen-
tlemen of the bar there, that it will not be at all
more convenient, even for the business of the city,
than the present court at Annapolis. With these
premises before us, how is it possible to escape the
conclusion that the present court of chancery should
remain, with such modifications as may be deemed
necessary, if any be necessary? |
