courts. But that has been changed, and now you
have districted the State, giving one judge to two
or more counties. If you now allow to Baltimore
city three judges, you will be giving to that part
of the State alone the extended benfits of the
single county system. If we are to go back to
that system, surely you cannot deprive the counties
of it without great injustice. But I fear from
what has taken place, you have determined to
adhear to this district system, by which, in this
district, I do know you have not afforded us equal
advantages to those you have conferred on Balti-
more city. We were to have four judges, whereas
you now give us one—one-fourth of what the
bill originally gave us—whereas Baltimore city
was to have had three judges and now you give
her two. It is obvious therefore, that we have
much more cause of complaint than Baltimore
city.
Mr. MORGAN. I merely rise, for the purpose
of defending, before this Convention, the propo-
sition which I originally introduced, which has
been adopted, and now ought to be reconsidered.
I desire this body to understand, in advance, that
I look upon those who acted and voted with me
on that occasion, as the best judicial reformers in
it. I desire, as the representative of a constitu-
ency writhing and smarthing under the imperfec-
tions of the old system, to see the evil eradicated
and a wholesome reform given to every county
throughout the State. When I took charge of
the bill introduced by the chairman of the judi-
ciary committee, I believe I submitted a system
which facts and figures demonstrated to be more
liberal towards Baltimore city, than that which
the Convention had given my own section, and
the rest of the State. I regret that I have not
more time, but I will give the statistics for the
purpose of proving what I say. Now, sir, this
paper which I hold in my, hand containing the
returns from some of the counties, has given as
the system which we now have, and I do not see
upon what principle it can possibly stand, I do
not see upon what calculation the proposition
which has passed this House, for the counties of
the. State was based; and I regret that the mover
of it is not present to defend it. In some sections
there is the greatest inequality of business, and
in other sections there are no returns whatever.
I will barely call the attention of the Conven-
tion to these facts, and compare them. For the
purpose of illustration, I desire to compare the
two districts in which my own constituency are
more immediately interested, and I will inform
this House that I have taken these statistics and
facts from the paper submitted by the gentleman
from Somerset [Mr. Crisfield,] himself, who pre-
pared them, and brought them before the notice
of this Convention. These returns are certified
to by the clerks of the courts. I will take the
first district, in which I reside. In this district,
composed of Charles, St. Mary's and Prince
George's counties, there were 782 common law
cases, and 81 criminal cases, (and we have no
separate criminal court, as in Baltimore,) making
a total of 863 civil and criminal cases. The se-
cond district is composed of the counties of Anne |
Arundel, Calvert, Montgomery, and Howard. In
Calvert county we have no returns, but from
what was stated by my friend from Calvert coun-
ty, [Mr. Sollers,] who is clerk of the court, and
from my own knowledge, I have put it at two
hundred. There are in that district 958 original
cases upon the common law side of the docket
and 73 criminal cases, making 1031 cases. Then
if you add the two districts, you will hare 1813
cases for the two judges you have given us.
I desire the Convention to bear in mind that in
this estimate the equity business of which my
friend speaks, is not at all included. One district
extends from the Frederick line to the Chesapeake
bay, and as far as the southern portion of Mary-
land runs, and the judge has to travel a distance
of one hundred miles, from one county seat to
another. There are 1200 Chancery suits on the
docket besides this. How do the returns of these
two judges in these two districts compare with
the returns of the work given to the two judges
which we have allotted to Baltimore city—the
returns upon which you have fixed this basis. In
Baltimore there are 1336 original cases. I do
not include in that the equity business, for I have
not done no in reference to the two districts of
which I have spoken. We have then 1336 cases
for each year estimated, taking the average from
1844, which these two judges have to attend to.
Subtract these 1336 cases from the 1813 cases
which are brought in the 1st and 2nd districts,
and the result will be that the two judges which
you have given us for these districts will have
487 more cases to attend to than the two judges
which we have given Baltimore city. These
statistics refer now solely to the original common
law business instituted yearly in the courts I
have mentioned. Take another view, you will
find—
(Mr. M's allotted time here expired.)
Mr. BOWIE. I hope the gentleman will be al-
lowed to proceed, the information he is giving us
is invaluable for a proper consideration of this
important question.
Mr. MORGAN. My friend from Prince George's
will excuse me. I desire for myself no exemp-
tion from the rules of this House, that has not
been given to others—I will proceed at another
time. I wish it to be understood, though, that I
do not introduce these statistics to show that Bal-
timore has a sufficient number of judges to attend
to all the business of that city—her delegation
nay otherwise—but I introduce them to shew that
if that city has not judicial labour enough, the
greatest inequality and injustice has been prac-
ticed upon the remainder of the State.
On motion,
The Convention then adjourned.
WEDNESDAY, May 7th, 1851.
The Convention met at 9 o'clock.
Mr. BLAKISTONE, of St Mary's, in the Chair.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRAUFF.
The proceedings of yesterday were read. |
