cases. These small cases have heretofore
often consumed in costs more than the
amount involved. We have then a judge in
each county—that is a chancellor—and
hears the appeals from magistrate? where the
parties desire to appeal to the circuit court
of the county.
Then put three adjoining counties into a
circuit, and let the three judges constitute the
circuit court, with full common law powers
and criminal jurisdiction, and thus you
bring home to the people a more speedy and
rapid settlement of the business, not only of
the equity court, but in hearing appeals
from magistrates, and all questions of com-
mon law or of criminal jurisdiction. Yet it
does not increase the number of judges.
Mr. JOKES, of Somerset. I merely wish to
add to what I have said that it is a maxim
of law that it is for the interest of the repub-
lic that there should be an end to litigation.
I think that the experience of the one-judge
system in this State has shown that it tends
to multiplicity of appeals, and especially
in those' districts where the judge is over-
worked and has to decide without due reflection.
In our district the judge has not
been overworked. He is an excellent judge,
learned in the law and the decisions remark-
ably accurate, and in the few appeals which
have been taken he has generally been sus-
tained. But in other districts, where the
judges have been overworked, where they
have done more than could be done accurately,
exceptions have been taken and often
sustained. The bar would not halve that
confidence in the decision of one man that
they would in the decision of three lawyers
of good standing, agreeing upon a point of
law; and in the latter case there would be
fewer appeals. I think this is worthy of
consideration. These appeals cost money to
the litigant, and it is for the public interest
that they should be as few as possible. I
think that consideration is worthy to be
taken into view in deciding whether to adopt
the three judge system or the one-judge sys-
tem.
Mr. HEBB. The reason why I did not put
in the section that they should he elected by
the people, was that the general provisions
pass upon the mode of election, and all the
clauses there are applicable to all the judges.
Mr. MILLER. This is one of the gravest
subjects we have had under consideration
since we have met in convention. The ad-
ministration of justice in the counties of the
State especially is a matter of deep interest
to the people of those counties. The system
that is proposed by the gentleman from Al-
legany may work very well for the counties
in the western portion of the State. He has
there by his system all the benefit of the one
judge for the single county. He makes Fred-
erick. Washington and Allegany counties
each to compose a judicial circuit, where one |
judge is there to administer the law. He is
easy of access to every part of the county
and case be approached on business matters
readily.
But in the other portions of the State, as I
caught from the reading of the amendment,
alarge number of the counties Would still be
left without a judge—that is, the judge would
halve to go from one county to another.
I hope that the amendment of the. gentle-
man from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke,) or
the report the committee will be adhered
to. The gentleman from Baltimore city, the
chairman of the committee (Mr. Stockbridge,)
has very ably set forth in his remarks to-night
the advantages of the system which he has
proposed. So far as our own judicial cir-
cuit is concerned we have had a very able
and excellent judge upon the bench. But it
is true that business has accumulated on his
hands, and there are instances of delay, and
complaints made by the judge himself; that
he is overtasked and overworked. If upon
a proper consideration of the expense" to the
State we should adopt a system by which one
judge should be appointed in each county,
having equity jurisdiction, and presiding
over the orphans' court, we should bring
home the administration of justice to the
doors of the people of the State generally,
We have declared in our hill of rights that
it is a fundamental principle of all government
that every man for every injury done
to his person or his property ought to have
justice, speedily without delay. The com-
plaint that has been universally heard in the
State under the present system is the delay
in the hearing of cases which are brought
before the courts. It has been in many in-
stances almost intolerable. It is conceded
on all hands that there must be some modi-
fication of the present system to meet the
wants of the people, I can conceive of no
better plan than to have the judges ap-
pointed in each county, and then too throw
three adjoining counties into a circuit for
the purpose of having civil and criminal
cases tried before three judges.
Now, although we have had no complaint
of that kind in our judicial circuit, yet I
have heard lawyers from other parts of the
State complain, and the people generally
complain of this one-man business. this one-
man power, in judging and determining every
case that comes before them. The concurring
opinion of three eminent and distinguished
men upon the bench would carry with it a
weight which no one man could possibly
have.
Under the old system appeals were less
numerous to the court of appeals. Now, in
almost every case where one man decides it,
under the present system, an appeal is taken.
Litigants would oftener be satisfied with the
decision on of three men upon the bench in im-
portant cases, than with that of one, and |
