case, if he chooses, notwithstanding the old
adage that "the lawyer who tries his own
case has a fool for a client "
The PRESIDENT. There is no use in putting
this in here; you cannot deprive a man of
that right, for be has it at common law.
The question was upon the motion of Mr.
MULLIKIN to reconsider the vote by which
the eleventh section was stricken out.
Mr. ABBOTT called for the yeas and nays
upon this question, and they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 44, nays 26—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs Abbott, Annan, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Brown, Cunningham, Cushing,
Davis, of Charles, Davis, of Washington,
Dennis, Dent, Ecker, Hebb, Hodson, Hop-
kins, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Ken-
nard, King, Lansdale, Mace, Marbury, Mar-
key, Mayhugh, McComas, Morgan, Mullikin,
Negley, Nyman, Parran, Robinette, Russell,
Sands, Schlosser, Smith of Carroll, Smith, of
Dorchester, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd,
Turner, Wickard, Wooden—44.
Nays— Messrs, Goldsborough, President ;
Audoun, Barron. Brooks, Carter, Chambers,
Clarke, Crawford, Daniel, Earle, Edelen, Gal-
loway, Hatch, Hopper, Jones, of Somerset,
Lee, Mitchell, Murray, Parker, Peter, Pugh,
Purnell, Schley, Smith, of Worcester, Stirling,
Stockbridge—26.
The motion to reconsider was accordingly
agreed to.
The question was stated to be upon
agreeing to the section, as amended, which
was read as follows :
"Every person shall be permitted to prac-
tice law in all the courts of this State, in his
own case."
Mr. MULLIKIN moved the following as a
substitute tor the section :
" Every person, being a voter, shall be ad-
mitted to practice law in all the courts of
this State, in his own case."
Mr. CLARKE, it might be considered that,
being an attorney, the vote in favor of strik-
ing out this section was one in which I was in-
terested, as being one who, to acertain extent,
probably might he benefited thereby, by the
exclusion of parties from acting in their own
cases. But a very limited experience on this
subject has convinced me that not only is
the profession not interested in having this
left out, but I think the public would beben-
efited, individually, by not having this right
extended to them. I understand that at com-
mon law any party who is sued in court has
the right to come in and have his personal
appearance entered. I once brought suit
against a person, and he undertook to con-
duct his own case. We had a rich scene
there, I can assure gentlemen, such as I never
saw before. During the pendency of the
trial almost a fight took place in the court
house. The party seemed to be entirely ig- |
norant of every form connected with his case.
He filed a plea covering from ten to twenty
pages, and going into everything except the
real merits of the case. There was a demur-
rer to that, and he filed another plea; to that
there was a demurrer, to which he again filed
a plea. And finally he had to get a lawyer
to take part in the case, while it was before
the court. Of course the lawyer who came
into the case then, had no knowledge of it.
The result of that case was that costs accu-
mulated to such an extent that the party was
really damnified. The case went up to the
court of appeals, and we agreed to leave out
a great many issues, it was 80 complicated
and involved. If this provision had never
been in the constitution, I think a great deal
now on the records of the courts would never
have got there.
Mr. MULLIKIN. I only want that in a plain
case, involving a hundred dollars for instance,
a man shall not becompelled to employ a
lawyer, but shall be allowed to try his own
case.
Mr. PARRAN. I move to insert the words
"in this State," after the words "being a
voter."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I move to strike
out the words "being a voter," so as to
leave the matter where the common law leaves
it. For fear that legal gentlemen here might
be under the implication of striking out what
may be considered by some, who do not know
what the common law is, their constitutional
right, it would be as well to incorporate the
broad provisions of the common law. It can
do no harm; it is but an affirmance of the
common law; and having been put in the
present constitution, if it is stricken out of
this the ignorant might suppose the lawyers
struck it out for their own benefit. It takes
very little experience to convince a man to the
contrary. A man never tries that thing but
once. He may go up and confess judgment,
that is done every day. But as to a man's
trying his own case, I never knew an instance
of a man doing that. the second time, I knew
a case once of a shrewd man, who tried his
own case, examined his own witnesses, etc.
His case was just as plain a case as possible,
and if he bad employed some one who under-
stood the matter to ask the proper questions
he would have been cleared. There happen-
ed to be two cases against him. In the first
one which he undertook, to manage himself,
be failed to make out his case, and the judge
decided against him. He then asked me how-
it was he had lost that case, and I told him.
He then asked me if I could get the case open-
ed again, I told him it was doubtful. He
told me he would give me ten dollars if I
would try, I went to see the judge, who said
the case was closed. Then said the man to
me—" I will get you to try the next case any-
way. " Now if a man trusts himself to draw-
up a declaration on a note for one hundred |
