fusion in all the departments of legal knowledge
in passing from one to the other. They never
could be united in one department of legal learn-
ing. The judges could not, if thus obliged to
attend to all classes of cases, properly discharge
the duties confided to them by the vote of the
people.
My colleague (Mr. Brent) has said the appel-
late jurisdiction of the city of Baltimore had for
years past occupied almost exclusively the at-
tention of Judge Purviance, until that docket has
reached nearly a thousand cases. We propose
to add that to the jurisdiction of the Court of
Common Pleas, for the trial of cases under $500
and to have a Superior Court for the trial of
cases above $500. There is an apprehension of
a failure of jurisdiction, and that parties may be
turned out of court. The proviso to be con-
nected with the 12th section is taken verbatim
from the act of Congress of 1789, commonly
called the Judiciary Act, and has bean for some
sixty years the subject of judicial construction
and yet the gentleman from Anne Arundel has
ventured to pronounce it anovelty. We desire
to distinguish between these courts by broad
lines of demarcation, so that every man may
know the forum to which he must resort for ap-
propriate relief.
We wish to have the jurisdiction so divided
that every man having a claim may know where
to go for redress. The plan of the gentleman
has already been tried. It was an experiment
hut it has gone beyond experiment, and we now
speak from experience. There is not a man in
Baltimore, even in the humblest walks of life
who does not feel the burden of the existing
system, and who does not wish to be relieved
and we are met here, in a great measure, to give
that relief. In the course of the very short canvass
which I had before the people—for I was
not only a candidate without solicitation, but
against my earnest solicitation,—I never said
but one word with regard to this Reform Convention.
That was upon the night before the
election, when I addressed the people and said
that there was one point upon which I desired
to speak frankly, and to ascertain their wishes
and that was with regard to a change in the
judiciary system.
During the many years that I had advocated
not only the expediency but the necessity of re-
form, I had so fully developed all my opinion
upon the prominent topics then under discussion,
that it would be more than a twice toll
tale again to declare the principles which had so
often been avowed, but that as the important
change now contemplated in the judiciary system
had not been presented so distinctly, as it
was now brought to the public notice, I felt my
self bound to announce that I was in favor of
thorough and radical reform in that department
of the government. The response from the assembled
multitude manifested their concurrence
in that opinion, and I feel myself acting under
the pledge thus given when I vindicate the system
we propose.
Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on the amendment offered by |
Mr. Morgan to the 13th Motion of the report,
and adopted by the Convention, striking out the
first paragraph of said section.
Mr. BROWN. I have no doubt that in the pre-
paration of this hill, some of the most experienced
and talented men of the bar of Baltimore
have been consulted, and surely they ought to
know what kind of courts will suit them best.
I understand that there is no increase of judges.
If the Convention should think proper to make
an increase of salary in consequence of the very
heavy duties to be performed, that will happen
in reference to any plan. The proposition, in
the bill is to create just such courts as the peo-
ple interested in them desire. I cannot see why
any portion of the State should object, when it
does not subject your treasury to any greater
expense. Why can we not permit them to ar-
range it for themselves? It appears to me that
we ought to do so. The same amount goes out
of the treasury to pay these men in either case;
and that is all in which we are interested. I
should think it was treating them unkindly not
to give them what they ask for. If they choose
to separate their equity from their common-law
business, they know what they require. If the
gentlemen from Baltimore city do not wish the
motion pressed now, I will withdraw it, and make
the motion to-morrow.
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore. I see no objec-
tion to considering it now.
Mr. BROWN, Then I do not withdraw the
motion to reconsider.
Mr. MORGAN. I move to postpone indefinite-
ly, for the purpose of making a few remarks.
The gentleman from Carroll (Mr. Brown) has
said that this did not save the treasury one cent,
the number of judges being the same. The
same in your new system as in the old system?
The same as they are now? But does not this
plan, adopted by the Convention, propose to
change the judiciary system as it is now, and to
give us one judge to preside over the district or
circuit courts, and to carry that change also
into Baltimore city? It is a plain question, to be
brought before the minds of this Convention,
whether or not the inembers of this Convention
are to abolish the jurisdiction of the court of
chancery in the whole State, for the purpose of
transferring it to the city of Baltimore, while
their constituents are turned from the bar of that
chancery court. Does the gentleman propose
to diminish the expense of it? The gentleman
from Carroll, who now seeks to revive the 13th
section, and who voted to give Baltimore city
this Chancellor, did not propose that that Chancellor
should have less than $2,500. It amounts
to this. You have made the issue at home, and
have come here upon that issue, to abolish the
chancery court; and now you propose merely
to transfer it to the city of Baltimore, taking
away from your own people the right to go into
that court,
Mr. BROWN. I voted against abolishing the
High Court of Chancery.
Mr. MORGAN. I know yon did. The gentleman
is more consistent than some others upon
that point; more so, certainly, than the mag- |
