that we have done. For the system of com-
mon school education we have raised four
hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.
We have increased the taxation for the pur-
pose of supporting common schools, over and
above what we have heretofore been in
the habit of paying, much more than the ju-
dicial system is proposed to be increased.
While I do not disparage at all the import-
ance of common school education, I think if
we are to be liberal in these matters, it be-
comes us in the administration of justice to
be a little liberal also. Let us manfully take
it on ourselves to say that we will have jus-
tice administered speedily without delay;
that we shall have at every man's door ready
access to a judge; that courts shall be fre-
quently held; and that the judge shall sit on
our orphans' court bench and try the cases
there which may be important in reference to
matters of law.
Mr. PURNELL. I should like to ask the gen-
tleman a question. In the system yon advo-
cate is it proposed to retain two judges of the
orphans' court?
Mr, MILLER. Yes, sir; to preside with the
judge of the county.
Mr. PURNELL. Did yon deduct the amount
of salary paid to this one judge ?
Mr. MILLER. I did.
Mr. PURNELL. And what difference do yon
make in the expense?
Mr. MILLER. It makes a difference of about
sixteen thousand dollars a year only. I think
if we could adopt this system it would do
more to benefit the people of the State than
we shall do by almost any act that we have
done from the beginning. That is a fair,
it seems to me, and a candid statement of the
matter; and I appeal to gentlemen not to let
this small item of additional expense weigh
in comparison with the great benefit and great
advantages we shall attain by the adoption of
this system.
Mr. THRUSTON. I have no doubt that it
would add very much to the economy of cer-
tain classes of suitors to have a judge in each
county in the State; and if the difference is
to be trifling, only fifteen or twenty thou-
sand dollars a year, I think It will be more
than saved by the convenience to the commu-
nity derived from having a judge always at
hand. I Know that under our present system,
in cases where injunctions are wanted, we
frequently have to go to an adjoining county
to get an injunction; and sometimes it takes
three or four days. In our present state of
affairs we could not communicate with an
adjoining county sometimes for ten days or
two week. If it is only to make a difference
of fifteen or twenty thousand dollars distri-
buted over the whole State, it ought not to
weigh a feather with the convention in re-
gard to giving each county a judge; for there
are cases where bail is to be given in criminal
cases, there are cages of injunction, and other |
oases of that kind, which require immediate
attention,
But there is another view to be taken of it,
more important in my mind than even
that; and it is this: the vast importance of
having a bench of three judges to decide on
important cases, especially if you have low
priced judges, as you will have with the sal-
aries provided now. There is a greater safety
in having three judges. With three minds,
there is a much better chance of having cor-
rect decisions than with one. We shall there-
fore have fewer appeals.
There is also another advantage in the sys-
tem advocated, and which is I believe sub-
stantially that reported by the committee;
and that is that we shall have the benefit of a
legal man on the orphans' court bench, as-
sisted by two judges to be elected by the peo-
ple as heretofore. I think in that way econ-
omy will be subserved, by having a legal
man on the orphans' court bench. I am in
favor of this system decidedly, if there is but
that small difference in the cost. I think it
is the system reported by the committee on
the judiciary.
Mr. MILLER. Substantially.
Mr. THRUSTON. I do not think we ought
to hesitate one single moment, to gain the ad-
vantages we shall gain by this system at an
expense of twenty thousand dollars; for we
shall save it ten times over in the correctness
of the decisions, and in the convenience of
having access to judges always at hand, a
judge residing in each county, I am there-
fore very much in favor of this system.
The question was stated upon Mr, MILLER'S
amendment.
Mr, ABBOTT, I should like to inquire what
became of the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Frederick (Mr. Schley,) this
morning ?
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I would
suggest to my friend from Frederick to in-
clude Baltimore city in his amendment.
Mr. STIRLING. It is perfectly proper as it
is, for this section has nothing to do with
Baltimore city. It relates entirely to the
courts of the counties. Still I have no objec-
tion, if each county is to pay the expense of
its own courts, to have the same principle
applied to Baltimore city. We shall save a
groat deal of money by it.
The PRESIDENT. There were two amend-
ments already pending; and the amendment
was not in order. The question is upon the
amendment submitted by the gentleman from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) to the amendment
submitted by the gentleman from Allegany
(Mr. Hebb.)
Mr. BELT. Before the vote is taken upon
this question, I wish to make an inquiry of
the chair with regard to the motion I pro-
posed to offer this morning. I proposed to
recommit this report with the view of having
it reported on Friday evening, after deciding |
