Mr. Thomas, which does provide for one
learned in tine law upon the bench of the or-
phans' court. I think that will obviate the
difficulty named by my friend. The provision
is this:
" Section 24. The qualified voters of the
city of Baltimore and of the several coun-
ties of the State shall on Tuesday next
after the first Monday in the month of No-
vember, 1867, and on the same day in the
game month in every fourth year thereafter
elect three men to bejudges of the orphans
court of said city and counties respectively,
one of whom shall have been admitted to
practice law in this State for at least five
years before his election, and who shall be
the chief justice of the orphans' court, and
who shall be citizens of the State of Mary-
land and citizens of the city or county for
which they may be severally elected at the
time of their election, and each of said
Judges shall be paid an annual salary of fif-
teen hundred dollars, except the chief jus-
tice, who shall receive an annual salary of
two thousand dollars, and which shall be
paid by the said counties and city respec-
tively."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I do not think it will
by any means insure its having one learned
in the law, if he is simply to have been ad-
mitted to practice law for five years, and
if he is to hold the office for a salary of
$2,000.
Mr. CLARKE. I do not see how I can well
raise the question before the convention
without offering an amendment to that of-
fered by the gentleman from Allegany county
(Mr. Hebb,) which I will read to the conven-
tion, earning out the idea I suggested when
I was up before. If it shall be adopted it
will be necessary to vary several other sec-
tions, and I have sketched a plan for this,
But really it is impossible, as said by the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stock-
bridge,) with the report, cut up in the manner
in which the convention seems determined
to do it, for any gentleman to submit an
amendment which contains any idea of any
plan or judicial system whatever. A gen-
tleman offers a proposition which is an amend-
ment of a section, and is part of a system,
but it is so cut up, and the whole thing is so
mixed up that nobody can tell what system
we are considering.
There can be no doubt that the present ju-
dicial system is imperfect. The people are
involved in heavy costs by reason of the im-
possibility of conducting the business with
despatch. Especially is it so with regard to
equity business, and so in many cases with
regard to petting injunctions. It is a notorious
fact that all the equity business is des-
patched at the end of the common law term.
What is the result? Members of the bar
are crowded with business; the judge is
crowded with business on the common law |
side of the court, and many orders are drawn'
and signed by the judge just as he is about
to get into his carriage to drive off. I do
not mention this as the fault of the judges,
but of the system.
The proposition which I have to offer
differs very little from that which is here re-
ported by the committee, but it is varied a
little, as I thought it would tend more
speedily to despatch the equity business of
the various counties. Upon this question 1
really think the convention ought to take
some other than a mere dollar and cent view
of it, it is the great question of dispensing
justice to the people of the State. It is the
great question whether or not. your courts
are to be a mere place for parties to become
involved in, where but few shall have a
speedy decision of the merits of their cases,
driving the people of the State out of your
courts to settle their cases by arbitration, or
to settle them in modes which give up all
their rights rather than to be involved in this
direction.
We have here attempted to frame a system,
believing it would carry out the views of the
convention, yet when we come down to this
system of dispensing the justice of the State
to the people, questions of expense are raised,
whether we shall pay $50.000 for one sys-
tem, or what will lie the saving to the peo-
ple of the State by a different system. But
1 will not take tip the time now with discus-
sion. I will offer the following amendment
to the amendment:
"Sec. 20. There shall be a judge for each
county in the State, who shall be elected by
the legal and qualified voters thereof, from
among those learned in the law."
1 will simply read the section I have drawn
up to show the system with which I propose
to follow this up :
" Sec. — There shall be a court in each
county in the State; they shall be called
equity courts for the county in which they
are held. The judge elected for each county
shall be the judge of the said court, and
shall have and exercise in the county for
which he is elected the full and exclusive
power, authority and jurisdiction of a court
of equity in their said county, with all the
chancery powers which the present circuit
courts have as courts of equity in the several
counties, or which may be hereafter pre-
scribed by laws made pursuant lo this con-
stitution, with the right of appeal to the
court of appeals, as is now or may be here-
after provided for by law."
The result of this is to have a judge in
each county, elected in the county, with
chancery powers to despatch the equity busi-
ness, Instead of halving the appeals from
magistrates heard only twice a year, they
will be disposed of four times a year or
oftener by the county judge, disposing of
them rapidly, and saving costs in small |
