not and could not follow the zig-zag, crooked
and searching tracks of the court of chancery,
but so far as its remedies extended they were
direct and perfect. He who sued for justice
there could march forward to her altar and
receive from the bands of her priest that measure
to which he was entitled. The systems
of equity were adopted from necessity; and
nothing but necessity would drive any sen-
sible man into that forum—a suit at law was
no mystery—everybody could understand it
sufficiently, and calculate with proximate cer-
tainty its expenses and its delays, but the pur-
lieus of the court of chancery were shrouded
in darkness and mystery, and his client gen-
erally when informed that no adequate reme-
dy existed elsewhere, would shrug his shoul-
ders and shrink back as from the horrors of
annihilation. Much of this it was true, arose
from the manner in which justice had been
administered in that forum; much amplification,
much reform, in that department
might doubtless be attained, and be trusted
would be, in what ever court its powers might
be vested, though in its best estate if the one
system or the other must goby the board, he
would take leave of it forever and take the
hazard of moulding the remedies of the courts
of law so as to attain the end of justice."
And not only was the proposition discussed
to make the proceedings similar, but they
discussed the proposition to blend both law
and equity together. Previous to that time
there was a sort of entire court of chancery.
Now I say the argument holds strongly in
this State; for with the exception of Baltimore
city, our courts of law are courts of
equity, and the same judges administer equi-
ty that administer common law And as one
gentleman from whom I have quoted says in
his very able argument, the distinction was
so nice, especially where one of the judges
administers both, that his mind was con-
stantly running from the common law chan-
nel into that of the other.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. As the gentleman
seems so familiar with the judicial system of
New York, will he tell me whether or not
there are masters of chancery in that State?
Mr. DANIEL. They abolished them by
this constitution. I copied the provision I
have offered here, from the present constitu-
tion of the State of New York, as published
in the book of constitutions with which
members have been furnished. The ground
taken there was the same ground I have taken
here to-day, that it does save time, and in
my judgment it saves expense to suitors. We
have the same thing in the United States
court in Baltimore city every day, sitting as
a court of admiralty. Judge Giles in all cases
of admiralty hears testimony and decides
upon it without the intervention of a jury
The proceedings are similar to those in equi-
ty. You commence with something like a
bill of equity; and then the answer is put in
42 |
and yon take testimony before the court, and
the court prepares a decision in the case. I
would not destroy the commissioners, for
where the witnesses cannot be present at the
trial, and the lawyers agree, you can take
the testimony of witnesses before a commis-
sioner.
Mr. STIRLING. You cannot do that if this
is put in the constitution.
Mr. DANIEL. Mr. 0'Conor said distinctly
it could be done.
Mr. STIRLING. It cannot bedone under our
practice, if this proposed section is adopted,
except out of the city or county.
Mr. DANIEL. It can be provided for. And
I think in all cases like these it would afford
greater facility. I was very much surprised
to hear my colleague (Mr. Stockbridge) say
to-day that the experience was that cases at
common law were as tedious or more so than
cases in equity. And he illustrated it by
saying that some have been in court since
the time of our grandfathers. It may he that
some have bung on like that, but I think ex-
perience is to the contrary. In a case at law
you try the case before a jury, you have the
witnesses before the court and can see their
manner and all about them, and get through
more rapidly than in cases of equity. It is a
common tale about the great delays in suits
in equity; novels have been written about it.
Mr. STIRLING, Is that applicable to this
State? It may bo applicable to such cases
as Jaundice vs. Jaundice, but not to cases in
our courts. The docket of the superior court
has cases on the docket longer than those in
our equity courts. It takes two years longer
to try some cases there than in the equity
court.
Mr. DANIEL. That does not at all meet the
objection I am making, it is said that pro-
ceedings are necessarily longer at common
law than in equity, that is because that
court is crowded with eases, and you cannot
get at the case.
Any man who has been in courts of justice,
and seen witnesses come in and be examined
orally, one come in, be examined and then
go out, and another come in, etc., must know
that it is a shorter process than to take tes-
timony before commissioners, by filling up
the record with exception after exception, to
go up to the other court. Some of the law-
yers from which I have read speak of the
interminable delay of cases in equity. One
of them said that when his client was told
that he must go into chancery, he would
shrink from it as from annihilation.
Mr. MILLER, I should regret very much
that gentlemen should go to the State of New
York and bring here all the new-fangled no-
tions of law that prevail in that State. In
reference to the matter of expense, about
which so much has been said by the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel,) the
experience of New York lawyers will show, |
