twice a week or a month into this office of
chancery, in order to give somebody a search
for which he is compensated by the fees?
This proposition therefore embraces an en-
tire departure from the ordinary rule adopted
heretofore, and that is the first reason why I
am opposed to it. If this gentleman performs
duties as keeper of the chancery record, I am
perfectly willing he should have the benefit
of the fees If his duties require him to per-
form any labors as commissioner of the land
office, I am willing he should . have the fees
incident to the performance of those duties,
which as an ordinary rule are, I think, asuf-
ficient consideration. I throw out these
hints to elicit some information; and I
make the inquiry of the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, from his knowledge of the
matter.
Mr. MILLER. So far as the duties of the
commissioner of the land office relate to the
keeping of the chancery records, I do not
know why the gentleman from Calvert should
have inquired of me more than any other
member of the convention.
Mr. BRISCOE. As a resident of Annapolis,
and member of the bar.
Mr, MILLER. At the time of the abolition
of the old chancery court 'there were a vast
number of records of cases, some of them
undisposed of. For the proper preservation of
these records, there was a provision for trans-
ferring to the several counties of the State the
cases undisposed of, and other cases which it
might he necessary to remove from the chan-
cery office to the counties where the parties
resided. A great many of these cases were
removed, Still there is a vast number of
cases in the land office, and a vast amount of
matter all important to the people of the
State and necessary to be preserved and taken
care of by somebody. I know that searches
are frequently made in the chancery office for
titles and for other purposes There are quite
a large number of important records there
preserved, which I do not think could be
effectually sent at once to the counties, but
under the provisions of law as the cases arise
they may be sent off.
I think it is the duty of the keeper of the
chancery records to preserve these records
with care, and to assist any person who comes
there to search for titles or papers; and when-
ever an order comes for the transfer of cases,
still remaining there to their respective coun-
ties, that, so far as I understand it, is the
duty of the keeper of the chancery record.
In reference to what my friend from Cal-
vert (Mr. Briscoe) has stated upon another
branch of the proposition in reference to the
land titles of the State, I do not fully agree
with him that it is unimportant. I know
that there was a law passed a few years ago
repealing the law authorizing the taking up
of land covered by navigable waters, So far
as the issuing of patents in that respect is |
concerned, there is no further jurisdiction in
the land office to do it. But the title to all
the lands in this State, where the State itself
becomes the proprietor, either by escheat or
in any other way, if there are any vacant or
unappropriated lands, or if there are any accre-
tions of land—for the State is constantly be-
coming the proprietor of lands—ia necessa-
rily vested in some officer of the State who
is entitled under the laws to issue warrants
for it. The office of commissioner of the
land office is important in that respect. It is
well known that in former times the chancel-
for of. the State was the judge of the land
office. When the chancellor office was abol-
ished in 1850, it became necessary either to
transfer this duty to some of the circuit
judges or to make some disposition or it; and
it was then decided to create this office, and
the commissioner of the land office was
clothed with all the powers the judge of the
land office formerly had and exercised.
That is, I suppose, all the statement the
gentleman from Calvert desired me to make
upon the subject.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. After the court of chan-
cery was abolished, upon the adoption of the
constitution of 1851, the legislature of 1854,
chapter 149, passed an act to proride for the
appointment of keeper of the records in the
court of chancery. That was amended in
1856, chapter 132, still providing for a keeper
of the records of the court of chancery, with
a salary of $1,000. That was continued un-
til the general assembly of 1862 was in ses-
sion. An amendment adopted by the leg-
islature of 1862, chapter 208, places there-
cords of the court of chancery in the custody
of the commissioner of the land office, and
they still so remain. I do not recollect any
action having been taken upon the subject
by the general assembly of 1864. nor do I
find any law upon the subject in the index to
the volume of laws for that year, or in the
journal of the house. But the house received
from the commissioner of the land office, as I
well remember, and I find it also among the
documents of that session, & report with re-
ference to the cases remaining in his custody
as keeper of the chancery records: from
which it appears that during the time which
had elapsed since he came into the office until
the legislature was in session in 1864, he had
transferred by order to the several counties
of the State some five or six cases only. and
there remained in his office undisposed of and
unfinished, a file of cases, of which he gives
the names in extenso, amounting to over a
thousand cases—I think, without counting
them exactly—there must be about twelve
hundred.
Not being one of the committee I did not
examine this question, and I am not pre-
pared to say, whether without detriment to
the public service this office can be dispensed
with. Upon a very slight examination it |
