ing such action upon the Legislature as would en-
sure the object desired.
His friend from Baltimore city, (Mr. Gwinn,)
had complained that clerks had received enor-
mous compensation under the act of 1826, al-
though, he said, that act was uniform through-
out the whole State, and this, his friend thought,
would be the evil resulting from any system
other than the one fixing the salaries. In the
first place, he was, sure his friend had not examin-
ed that act, with his usual care and accuracy,
else he would have come to a very different con-
clusion. The want of uniformity, not in the act
itself, but in the construction under the act, was
the great evil complained of, and his friend was
the first lawyer in the State, whom he had ever
heard advance the opposite opinion. The opera-
tion of the act might be uniform in the courts of
Baltimore, in which his friend had obtained the
experience for the opinion he had given, but he
would ask any gentleman out of the large number
of the legal profession upon this floor, if in
the circuit in which they practice in other parts
of the State, any two clerks ill any two of the
counties, charge similar fees under that act.
This was no fault of the clerk; the evil was the
doubtfull construction permitted by the act, in
applying its provisions to the business done by the
clerk, both in and out of court. Where the construction
was doubtful, it could not be expected
that every clerk in Maryland, should arrive at the
same conclusion upon some possibly two or three
hundred different items of charge presented in
the schedule of that law. Hence it was that the
operation of the act was not uniform, and allowed
a construction that covered he excessive fees of
which his friend complained. But by the pas-
sage of a law, such as had been suggested, direct-
ing the payment of fees by the plaintiff and de-
fendant in gross, and not as prescribed by the pre-
sent law, this difficulty was gotten rid of in the
only manner it could be to give relief, it would
also advertise every man who entered the court
house, of the costs of his case. before commenc-
ing it and would abolish the whole system of
fees, which since the institution of the State
government had been harassing the people in
the hands of sheriffs and other officers.
Again, the gentleman had said that he saw no
difference between the case of a register and a
clerk, to entitle the former to a salary. He
[Mr. M ] had not yet made up his mind as to the
propriety of making the register an officer of
fixed salary but with his friend from Prince
George's, (Mr. Bowie,) he could see a wide difference
between the two officers, as to the opera-
tion of their duties upon the property of the
community. The clerk is only compensated by
the suitors of his court, and by far the largest
amount, of the property of the people never come
under the judgment of that court; hence it is
that in his case, by levying a sum for a fixed
salary, you would tax the owners of property to
pay for services which they, nor their representatives,
may never receive and never require. In
the case of the register, nothing in this world
is so certain as death, and so sure as death comes, |
the property of the party dying must pass under
the supervision of the register, and be subject,
in proportion to amount and trouble, to fees of
office. This is necessary under the operation of
law, because no title can pass to parties who
have property thrown upon them by the death
of relations or friends, without a granting of let-
ters of administration by the probate judges.
Hence as the recurrence of each cycle that ter-
minates the period of a generation, arrives, all
the property of the community passes then, by
force of law, under the charge of the register.
The property of the whole people may then be
said, sooner or later, to be interested in the duties
that pertain to the register. He could see a wide
difference between the case of the register and
clerk, operating to make the former an officer
of fixed compensation, though he would not now
say that he was prepared even to go that far.
For the purpose of inverting an article enjoin-
ing upon the Legislature to make all fees uni-
form, plain and intelligible, to reduce them by an
abolition of the act of 1826, to give a knowledge
to each suitor of the amount of his costs in the
enforcement of his rights, none of which objects,
he thought, the section adopted by this Conven-
tion would accomplish; he hoped the motion to
reconsider would prevail, he should vote for it
with pleasure.
The question being on the motion to reconsid-
er.
Mr DAVIS demanded the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Hope-
well, Ricaud Chambers of Kt., Donaldson. Wells,
Sellman, Sollers, J. Dennis, J.U Dennis, Dashiell,
Williams, Hicks, Hodson. Goldsborough, Eccle-
ston, Phelps. Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, George, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Thomas, Thawley,
Brent of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, Michael
Newcomer, Davis, Waters, Anderson, Weber,
and Smith—37.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Howard,
Buchanan, Welch, Ridgely, Colston, McCul-
lough, Shriver, Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Stewart of Ca-
roline, Gwinn, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Ware, Neill, Kilgour Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Show-
er. Cockey, and Brown—24.
So the Convention reconsidered their vote on
said article.
The question being on agreeing to said article.
Mr. BOWIE said that inasmuch as this subject
was provided for in the judiciary report, it was
extremely proper to lay this proposition by until
the Convention had considered that report. He,
therefore, moved, that the further consideration
of this subject be postponed.
The motion was agreed to,
On motion of Mr. SOLLERS, the Convention
took up for consideration the following report
submitted by him on the third instant, as chair-
man of the committee on the further amendments
and revisions of the Constitution:
1st. That this form of Government and the
Declaration of Rights, and any part thereof may
be altered, changed or abolished by the passage |
