Some of them in foreign countries, and yet, all
this is to be performed within the brief space of
five years, because certain members who have
no information whatever on the subject, think
that period of time sufficient. Many important
chancery causes are now in the Court of Appeals
and cannot reasonably be expected to be returned
and completed within the time limited.
Where is this unfinished business to go, accord-
ing to the proposition ? To the counties wherein
one or more of the defendants reside—the heirs
of an insolvent estate or otherwise without any
interest whatever in the cause. Suppose none of
the defendants reside within the State—which
is a very common case. Suppose an equal
number of defendants reside in different coun-
ties. Who is to decide, when all the officers
of the court are abolished, where the causes are
to go ? These causes generally involve the titles
to land in the State—how are these titles to be
brought upon the records of the county where
the land lies? Who is to have the custody of
these valuable papers ? Provision for these im-
portant matters is no where made in this plan,
and hence, the loss of the most valuable original
papers may be the consequence. Leave the bu-
siness with the court where it has originated to
be completed, whose decision, it may be, has al-
ready been impressed upon some parts of the
cause, whose commissions are being executed
and its other proceedings in the course of execu-
tion, according lo its own established practice,
whereby there will be saved much time and great
expense to the parties and the business conducted
with certainty, security and despatch. As before
stated, the expenses of this court, when reduced
by the receipts from costs, taxes and commissions
arising from its proceedings, amount to less than
one thousand dollars a year, less than even the
additional fees parties will have to pay the so-
licitors for the removal of their causes. Under
these circumstances, it is a duty the Convention
owe to the parties in these causes to extend the
time allowed to close up the busines of the court.
If the Convention be not prepared to do so, let
the matter be left to the Legislature, who will
be required to make many other provisions in or-
der to prevent injury and loss otherwise necessa-
rily consequent upon the breaking up of such a
court—a court which has existed from the settle-
ment of our country with a general jurisdiction
as comprehensive as the limits of the State.
On motion of Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER,
The Convention was called and the doorkeeper
sent for the absent members.
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER moved to suspend
further proceedings under the call.
Before the question was taken the doorkeeper
returned, and reported that he had notified the
absent members that their attendance in the Convention
was required.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment, as offered by Mr. JOHN NEWCOM-
ER, to the twenty-fifth secton.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved that the question
be taken by yeas and nays,
Which, being ordered,
94 |
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative.— Messrs. Dalrymple, Bond, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Dashiell, Constable, Chambers, of
Cecil, Miller, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Jacobs, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
McHenry, Nelson. Carter, Thawley, Hardcastle,
Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware. Schley, Fie-
ry, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Brewer, Weber, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Ege, Shower, Cockey and Brown—40.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Blakistone. Hopewell, Lee, Chambers,
of Kent, Donaldson, Wells, Randall. Kent, Sell-
man, Weems, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Williams, Phelps, Bowie, Grason. George, Wright,
Fooks, Johnson, Stephenson, Magraw, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Neill, Waters, Anderson and Hollyday—33.
So the amendment was adopted.
On motion of Mr. SCHLEY,
The amendment was amended by inserting af-
ter the word " Constitution," in the sixth line,
the words " the office of Chancellor of this State
and."
Mr. HOWARD moved to reconsider the vote of
the Convention just taken on the amendment of-
fered by Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER and amended on
the motion of Mr. SCHLEY, stating that the con-
sequences would be very severe upon the people
of the State and upon the courts about to be or-
ganised, there being two thousand cases upon the
chancery docket.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER withdrew the amend-
ment offered by him,
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER then moved to amend
said twenty-fifth section by striking out, in the
ninth line the word "five" and insert "two"
wherever it occurs in said section.
Mr. BROWN was in favor of the amendment.
If the time was fixed at two years, the work
could be done within that time; and, if fixed at
ten years, it would not be done until the expira-
tion of that time. If the time was fixed at five
years, it, would take $15,000 from the treasury;
if ten years years, $30,000; if two years, but
$6000. The whole question of time was at the
mercy of those who had business with the court.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said that upon
any agricultural matter, he would not venture to
place his opinion by the side of that of the gen-
tleman from Carroll or the gentleman from Wash-
ington county. Nor did he think that they could
give as clear a judgment upon matters relating
to the legal profession, as those who were con-
versant with it. He had known the present Chancellor,
with his rare powers of industry, in three
days from the time any important and difficult
case was argued before him, to give anelaborate,
learned and satisfactory opinion of the case; and
he did not believe that the Court of Appeals
could work with the despatch of the Chancellor.
But he understood that the present Chancellor
would not remain to wind up the business of the
court; and he did not believe there was another
man who could do half the amount of work. |
