so happened with me a few years ago that I was
for the only time in my life, brought up before a
court. I desired to try my own case, but was
not allowed to do it. Gentlemen may say what
they please, it is not the practice to allow a man
to plead his own cause. I have often been on
the jury, and in court, and have never known of
such a thing being done, and have always heard,
from members of the bar, that a man has a right
to employ counsel, but cannot argue the case
himself. Did I understand the gentlemen from
Anne Arundel to say that by any rule of court a
mill has a right to try his own cause, and have
counsel to aid him?
Mr. RANDALL. Any rule of court denying a
man that right would be unconstitutional, and no
court in this State has undertaken as far as I
know to pass such a rule. nor do I believe any
such ever will. I will show the gentleman on
every civil and criminal docket in the courts
where I practice cases in which the entry is
made thus: P. P., which means that the defen-
dant appears himself without counsel to his own
cause.
Mr. BROWN. Will the gentleman tell me
what part of the Constitution is violated by that
rule?
Mr. RANDALL. There is no express provision
on the subject. The Constitution is violated in
its spirit wherever the natural right of self-de-
fence is attempted to be restrained without ex-
press authority—Such would be a restriction
upon a man's right to speak in his own cause.
There is no provision in the Constitution deny-
ing a man that right, nor any provision there re-
quiring him to procure counsel.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I have a very high respect
for the gentleman from Harford, and like to
•agree with him when I can consistently do so.
But lam a little apprehensive that his effort does
not go as far as it might if I understand the ob-
ject in view. The proposition of the gentleman
is that in courts of justice every individual shall
be authorised to try his own cause. I do not
know whether it embraces both whites and
blacks, for both have causes in court, but wheth-
er it does or not, the proposition is that suitors
in courts shall have the right to try their own
cases. If the doctrine is that suitors can batter
protect their own interests by defending them-
selves, than by trusting to those whose study
and education fit them for that particular occupation, then
they should prepare their own plead-
ings. They should be authorised to file their own
declarations and other pleadings, and this must
be done according to the rules of pleading, other-
wise they will fail in their cases, and be turned
out of court. I never knew the true value of
lawyers—(and I have always estimated them as
among the very best in the land, in every par-
ticular; as the very salt of the earth—until my
friend from Carroll addressed the Convention,
and just now told us that when he desired to
try his own cause, he was advised by a lawyer
by no means to attempt it. I honor the lawyer
for giving this advice, for from my knowledge
of my friend from Carroll, if he had undertaken |
to try his own case, God knows what would
have become of it. As it was, I doubt not the
lawyer who did try the case brought him out
safely. I would suggest to the gentleman from
Harford, if his object be to allow all to come into
the courts to try causes, whether it would net
he better to enlarge his proposition so as to per-
mit them not only to try the causes, but to pre-
pare all the necessary pleadings and papers ap-
pertaining to the trial. He would soon see
whether this would reduce expense to the sui-
tors, and facilitate the enforcement of their
rights.
Mr. BROWN. The gentleman from Baltimore
county seems to have misunderstood me. I did
not say that my lawyer brought me out. It was
an overt act; hut I could not have that done
without having a lawyer. That is not the mat-
ter at issue. The gentleman says a suitor should
draw up his own pleadings. The very proposi-
tion is to have a lawyer associated with him.
Why do you want him associated with you, un-
less it is to draw up your pleadings? If a far-
mer, mechanic, or merchant, has acase in court,
no matter what his abilities are, he cannot plead
his cause, because he is not a practitioner at the
bar. If a lawyer propounds to me a question
which is insulting—and it is one thing in this
whole reform I have come here for the particu-
lar purpose of breaking down—and I give a pro-
per reply in the ears of the court, I am ordered
to be hushed.
I say, in the face of high Heaven, I have stood
by and witnessed judges upon the bench per-
mit the character of highly respectable men to
be torn to pieces, and yet these men could not
open their mouths. I should like to see the act
(and there may be such a one) which makes this
distinction in society, which creates this kind of
aristocracy in the land, for it has this effect. I
am not speaking against lawyers, unless gentle-
men will have it so; I am speaking against the
system and the manner in which it works.
When you go into a court of justice, how is it ?
If I had a cause, and should employ counsel to
try it, the other party would not fall upon the
lawyer nor the witnesses, but he would fall upon
me. If I should say to the gentleman from Bal-
timore county, when lashing my character,
Mr. BUCHANAN. I would not do that—
Mr. BROWN. If I should say to the gentleman
from Baltimore county, when lashing my charac-
ter, you are insulting me, the judge would say,
"Sheriff take that fellow to jail," B t will never
live to go to jail. I have seen such cases until
the blood has boiled in my veins—seen them oc-
cur in a court where men do not meet equal.
There ought to be authority to keep the counsel
within the case. I do not think there is a single
member of the bar here, if he will reflect a mo-
ment, that does not know such cases have occur-
red, I go for fair, even-handed justice. I say
this—though I am a very humble citizen, I am
as proud a man as ever tramped the soil of Ma-
ryland; and no man shall ever assail my character.
If they would undertake it, I would pick up
an inkstand, and throw it at his head. In such |
