plain that you propose to abolish a court, which
it now actually performing in a manner most acceptable
to the Baltimore bar, most of their
chancery business, and at the same time that of
Our own district, and of some parts of the State
requiring its aid, and yet it is again and again
urged upon the Convention to create a new court
in the city of Baltimore to transact their equity
business. In other words, you abolish a court
which performs most of the equity business in
Baltimore and this district, and much from the
other parts of the State, and you establish another
at a like expense in Baltimore for the benefit of
Baltimore alone. You break up an established
court now in full operation under officers approv-
ed of and commended here by every one, and
scatter its important business to the imminent
peril and great cost and delays of parties every
where, or leave it unprotected here, and you run
the hazard of having half as efficient a court in the
city of Baltimore. Even for the service of Balti-
more itself, this accumulated business left unfinish-
ed, and the equity business of this district disregarded.
It is a measure impolitic, unwise and op-
pressive to every part of the State, except the
city of Baltimore. We call upon this Convention
to retrace their steps, continue in full operation
this valuable court, and thereby you remove not
only the grievances of this and other adjoining
districts, but of the city of Baltimore itself
But permit me to remind the gentleman that
this House has two or three times determined
not to give to the city of Baltimore another
court. Yet the gentleman has again and again
urged upon the House the reconsideration of that
determination. If the action of this House is to
be settled as to one of these points, the denial to
Us of the Chancery court as stated, why not have
it also settled in its denial to Baltimore another
judge? Our grievance is this; I repeat it, because
I am compelled to do so, an the gentleman
from Baltimore again and again brings the same
subject before the House. We have four coun-
ties in this district, and you have assigned to our
four counties but one judge to discharge all the
judicial labors—civil, criminal, and chancery. I
believe I can satisfy any one who will look at the
business of these counties, that it exceeds what
is proposed to he performed, by any one of these
judges in the city of Baltimore.
First, you apportioned the judicial services in
these districts on the basis of the number of days
the judges of the county courts were occupied,
regardless of the fact, which the reports to this
Convention establish, that the equity business of
this district was taken to the Chancery court,
and did not add to the number of days, the coun-
ty courts were in session—the very and only
basis by which you apportioned our judicial ser-
vices. This would be all correct if the Court of
Chancery was to be continued. But that you
propose to abolish and thus you take from us the
aid of a court which has greatly reduced the
number of days our county courts are required
to sit and substitute nothing to supply this great
loss of judicial facilities in this district.
Another item has never been taken into the
consideration of the Convention, that is, the time |
consumed by the judge in travelling to and from
the various courts in this district, composed of
four counties. There are fixed: by this Constitution,
at least, two sessions yearly, of the courts of
law in each county, they must also have at least
two sessions of courts of equity, as they now
have in each county, thus making sixteen terns
a year to be attended by the judge. Suppose the
time consumed in going and returning to and
from leach court to be three days—a fair average
—this will require from one to two mouths
without accident of delays to be consumed in trav-
elling.
Now. sir. the judges in the city of Baltimore,
are saved all this time as well as expense, for-
merly, the judges of that district of which Balti-
more city was a part, had to attend the courts, of
Baltimore county and Harford county, which: ac-
cording to the reports occupied about seventy
days—equal to nearly three , months of time.—
Such is not now to be required of the Baltimore
city judges. All this is so much gain to the city
of Baltimore by this judicial system, over that
which formerly existed.
The judges of the city of Baltimore, being also
now released from all criminal jurisdiction in, and
out of court for Baltimore and Harford counties,
relieves them from many of the engagements
which formerly occupied much of their time and
attention, and are now to continue to be dis-
charged by the judges in the counties.
The permanent location of a judge's official
duties within the city where a few minutes ena-
bles parties to obtain his aid, adds greatly to the
facilities of the community in the transaction of
all their judicial business whereas we shall have
journeys of days to make in the counties to ac-
complish the same object.
The city of Baltimore has retained more near-
ly than any portion of the State, the judicial
power which the bill as originally introduced by
the committee contemplated to afiord to the vari-
ous parts of the State, at that time too, it, was
proposed to give to each county one judge exclu-
sively—now we have one judge where that
bill, proposed to give us four, and Baltimore city
has four judges where that bill proposed to give
her five—we have one fourth of what was inten-
ded for us and Baltimore has four-fifths of what
was intended for her. Thus Baltimore city is
the only part of the State which is to have the
fall benefit, or nearly so, of the provisions made
in the original bill, as introduced from the judi-
ciary committee.
When it was proposed to give each county a
separate judge, it was at that time that this bill
contemplated giving to the city of Baltimore
this additional judge, because it contemplated
that the orphans court should be abolished and
all the powers it exercised were to be conferred
on this judge. Then we were to have a separate
judge for each county to exercise all these pow-
ers.
This Convention .has been pleased to deter-
mine, (and I am gratified at it,) that the orphans
court system shall remain as it was, to be execu-
ted by a separate tribunal, thus at once dispens-
ing with the necessity, which, in the opinion of |
