volve upon the Legislature, who can really
know nothing about it, but upon the county
commissioners of the several counties, who
are abundantly competent.
[This modification is made in the amend-
ment above ]
Mr CHAMBERS. I suggested to the gentle-
man, when lie was upon the floor, the ques-
tion of the propriety of including the chang-
ing of the names of persons. It is no part of
the gentleman's purpose, I presume, to give
legislative powers to the court. There is no
mischief in this State greater than that
which has been complained of and which this
section is designed to remedy; that is, the in-
terference of the Legislature in eases where
individual rights are concerned, and where
patties have no opportunity of being properly
represented and heard. A large portion of
the catalogue of cases enumerated' is of that
character. I go earnestly with the gentleman
in advocating the principle upon which he
proceeds.
At the same time we are not to exceed that
principle. If I understand him, the principle
which should regulate our course, is that the
Legislature should adopt general rules, lay
down certain principles; that a defective deed,
for instance, shall be amended under partic-
ular circumstances, and the facts which con-
stitute those circumstances are to be brought
to the notice of the court, and if within the
principle established by the Legislature, the
court can furnish the remedy.
I do not see that that can be the case in the
particular instance suggested of changing
names. Usually names are changed from con-
siderations furnished by some relative or
friend of the party who desires to have his
name changed. It would be very difficult to
enumerate all the cases in which such a
change is necessary. I undertake to say that
not much time has been wasted by legislation
in that particular, I do not think it can be
said that the Legislature can well lay down
general principles upon which the court can
determine whether the facts constitute the
case that is provided for. I object strongly
to putting a case before the court where they
are not to judge of the conformity of the
facts with the law, but to exercise their dis-
cretion with regard to the facts and the law
too. That is legislation; and that power I
do not think the court ought to be requested,
or obligated, or even permitted to exercise.
I do not know that I have made my self dis-
tinctly understood. Let us look at the amend-
ment. The Legislature is forbidden to grant a
new trial. It is altogether wrong for the Legis-
lature to do that, because that is a matter to be
governed by the practice of the courts. The
Legislature have been in the habit of amend-
ing defective deeds. That is all wrong.
General principles have been laid down, and
the courts have nothing to do but to ascertain
whether the facts of a particular case are |
within the principles which govern in the
form of the law of the State, and if so to pass
it or reject it. The Legislature makes the law ;
but the fact is submitted to them by ex parte
testimony, and very often only a portion of
the facts, and they exercise the right to
judge of the law and the fact.
So with regard to other cases. Let the
Legislature adopt the principle upon which
the courts are to act, and let the courts carry
out those principles, upon the establishment
by proof of the particular cases provided for.
I do not understand how the courts, in the
case of changing names, are to be instructed
by any general principle which can regulate
their practice in particular cases.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would like to inquire
of the gentleman from Kent, whether in his
remarks he opposed the whole amendment, or
merely this provision which lie desires to be
stricken out.
Mr. CHAMBERS. My proposition is simply
to strike out that particular item enumerated.
Mr. RIDGELY. It appears to me that if this
amendment were divided and the questions
brought up for the consideration of the house,
seriatim, it would facilitate progress very
much. If in order I would ask fora division
of the question.
The PRESIDENT. It is susceptible of divi-
sion.
Mr. MILLER. I have some objections of a
general character to the whole amendment
offered by the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stockbridge.) I doubt the practica-
bility of effecting by general laws such things
as his amendment covers. We have had fif-
teen years experience under the present Con-
stitution of the State, in which such provi-
sions ill several instances have been incorpo-
rated, The most important propositions are
such as affect the counties locally, and the
laws in relation to the powers and duties of our
county commissioners, or road supervisors,
and relating to the school fund and matters
of that kind. The obligation upon the Leg-
islature, under the existing Constitution of
the State is to pass laws making the powers
and duties of the county commissioners and
road supervisors, uniform throughout the
State. The article in the present Constitu-
tion in reference to county commissioners,
provides that they shall be elected by general
ticket, &c., and proceeds :
"Said commissioners shall exercise such
powers and duties only as the Legislature may
from time to time prescribe; but such pow-
ers and duties, and the tenure of office shall
be uniform throughout the State; and the
Legislature shall, at or before its second reg-
ular session, after the adoption of this Con-
stitution, pass such laws as may be necessary
for determining the number for each county,
and ascertaining and defining the powers,
duties, and tenure of office of said commis-
sioners." |
