562 THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

It is no where said or intimated, whether the ultimate object of
this bill was to expunge from our Code the whole of the principles
of equity or not; or whether it was intended to have no separate
Court of Chancery; or to have such Courts, but no Chancellor; or
where or how those powers and duties, now held and discharged
by the Chancellor, were to be deposited and administered. The
first sections of the Act of 1804, ch. 55, framed the present six
judicial districts; and then the same Act declared that the
General Court should be abolished. The Act which destroyed
the General Court began by providing an ample substitute. But
by this Act, for abolishing the office of Chancellor, there would
have been an effectual pulling down; but no building up of any
kind whatever.

On contemplating this short bill many inquiries suggest them-
selves; as, whether it would be expedient to eradicate from our
Code every principle of equity or not? whether, if those principles
are to remain, they can be administered easier, more speedily, and
* cheaper than they are at present f whether it would be
600 better, and cheaper to have six, or eight Chancellors than
one Chancellor? The late General Court was deemed a grievance
and abolished; because, at great expense and inconvenience, it
dragged witnesses and jurymen from all parts of the State to the
seat of Government. But the Court of Chancery, like the Court
of Appeals, does not call for witnesses or jurymen from any part
of the State. It brings before it nothing but the record, docu-
ments, and papers belonging to the case. The lawyers may attend
in person, or they may send their arguments in writing. These
are some of the thoughts suggested by this bill, on which reflec-
tions might be carried out to a considerable extent.

This bill to abolish the office of Chancellor was appointed to be
read a second time on the 28th of the same month on which it was
brought into the House; but, from some cause or other, it was
unattended to on that day, and was not called up until the Monday
forenoon of the 7th of February, when it was passed, apparently,
as a matter of course, without debate, by a vote of 33 to 23, and
sent to the Senate—in which house, on the 9th of the same month,
it was taken up and read a second and third time, by a special
order, and rejected. Upon the whole, then, on considering this
first one of the suggestions which originated from the com-
munication of the register in Chancery, it would seem not to have
been intended as a regular attack, but as a mere demonstration,
as nothing more than a sort of preparatory feeling of the an-
tagonist.

The second bill from this committee, by which it was intended
to reduce the salary of the Chancellor, was entitled, "An Act to
ascertain and fix the salary of the Chancellor." The place in
which it was intended to express the amount of the salary was, as