a case I would be sent to jail, but the lawyer
would go scott-free. I see the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Brent,) smiling. I was
about to relate what he once told me, in relation
to a precisely similar case, but I will not do it.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I hope the
gentleman will relate it.
Mr. BROWN'S time here expired, and he resu-
med his seat.
Mr. STEPHENSON then withdrew the proposi-
tion submilted by him, and substituted therefor
the following:
"Every person of good moral character, being
a voter, shall be entitled to admission to practice
law in all courts of justice."
Mr, BOWIE moved to amend the amendment
by adding at the end thereof the words "in his
own case."
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I shall vote
for the proposition submitted by the gentleman
from Harford. I believe I handed it to some
gentleman who passed it to the gentleman,
This seems to be a war between lawyers and
anti-lawyers. I belong to the lawyers, but will
vote for the largest liberty. The gentleman
from Carroll is a sort of Roderick Dhu, it
seems, who
"Rights, such wrong where e'er 'tis given,
E'en that it be in the court of Heaven."
The gentleman's blood boils because in a court
of justice, a lawyer, when he is arguing the facts
and reviewing the evidence, assails the veracity
of a witness, as he ought to do perhaps,
Mr. BROWN. I said parties, not witnesses.
Mr. BRENT. It is the same thing. That be-
cause a lawyer is arraigning the conduct of a
party in the light of day, and before an intel-
ligent and impartial jury. and upon his responsi-
bility out of court, and also his responsibility for
an action of slander, the gentleman's blood
must boil, to hear a lawyer applying such epithets
to the party or witness, because that party has
not the right to rise there, and tell the lawyer
that he is insulting him. I have only to say that
if the gentleman's blood boils at conduct of this
kind, the party has a remedy—always has a rem-
edy. Do not let him interfere with the decorum
of the court, but let him call the counsel to ac-
countability the moment he leaves the court, and
if he has not the courage to do that (and I have
no doubt the gentleman from Carroll has courage
enough), let him take the legal responsibilty
which the law fastens upon the slanderous coun-
sel. The gentleman from Carroll must consider
that if the counsel are not protected in this way
by the court, it would abridge that freedom of
discussion secured to every citizen. It is neces-
sary for the administration of justice. Every
time I assail a malefactor in court, (and I do say,
upon my responsibility, that though I have as-
sailed many men, I never did so unless I thought
they deserved it,) am I to be interrupted by
him in my argument, and be told that I am in-
sulting him, or lying? You might as well shut
up your courts at once, and exile your judges.
These Roderick Dhu opinions do not suit the
spirit of this age. |
Mr. TUCK made some remarks, which will he
published hereafter.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline. I do not intend to
make any lengthy argument, but merely desire
to say that I am surprised at witnessing the
course this argument has taken—and to find how
completely parties are changed. All appear to
have gotten on the wrong side. Lawyers, if any
one, it seems to me, should be in favor of this
proposition, to permit every one to practice law
in the courts; but on the other hand, those who
are not lawyers, if they are sincere in what they
state is their opinion of the members of the bar
should be opposed to the proposition. Without
giving all the reasons for this, I will suggest only
one. I have heard the gentleman from Carroll,
(Mr. Brown,) and others, who are not lawyers
frequently inside of this Convention, as well as
out of it say, that lawyers were not to be depend-
ed upon, and that they knew how to overreach
and take advantage; yet here is a proposition to
insert an article in the Constitution, the effect of
which will make every citizen of the State a.
cheat and a rascal, because it will make them alt
lawyers. (Laughter.)
Mr. BROWN. When did the gentleman ever
hear me say that lawyers were rascals?
Mr. STEWART. I do not say that the gentle-
man said it directly, but he has rather insinuated
such a thing. The gentleman will not deny that
the community entertain rather an unfavorable
opinion of lawyers as a class. I dare say that
neither he nor any other gentleman would call a
lawyer directly a rascal and cheat.
They always take care and speak of lawyers as.
a class, that know how to manage and cheat the
people and obtain large fees. I say that if such
practices are known to lawyers, or if those who.
are not lawyers entertain such an opinion, I call
upon them lo keep the citizens of the State out
of harms way and not make them all lawyers.
The lawyers, I have said, might be in favor of the
proposition, because they do not entertain the
belief that their profession is disgraceful, but
that it is honorable, and may be pursued by men
of the purest principles and character.
Mr. GEORGE demanded the previous question
which was seconded
The question was stated to be on the amend-
ment offered by Mr, BOWIE.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved that the
question be taken by yeas and nays, which being
ordered, appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't., pro tem.,
Morgan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Lee, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Kent, Buchanan, Sherwood of
Talbot, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Hodson,
Phelps, Constable, McCullough, Miller, Bowie,
Tuck, Grason, George., Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Jacobs, Shriver, Biser, Stephenson, McHenry,
Nelson. Carter, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware
Smith, Parke, Shower and Cockey—49.
Negative— Messrs. Sellman, Weems, Bond,
Howard, Bell, Williams, Fooks, Gaither, Annan,
Magraw, Brent of Baltimore city, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Weber and Brown—16, |
