The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-06


 amendment on the table.
 Mir. deGraffenried-on that I call for the ayes and noes.
 The call for ayes and noes was rot sustained.
 The President-The question Is on the motion to table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Hale to the section as reported by the commit.'ss.
 The reading of the amendment was called for. and the amendment was again read by the Secretary.
 Upon a vote being taken. the motion to table prevailed, and a further vote the section was adopted.
 Mir. Waddell-I gave notice or Sat- urday afternoon that I would move to reconsider the vote whereby aeC.ion 2 was adopted. and also to reconsider tte vote whereby the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montgomery was lost. make that motion now.
 Mir. Boone-I rise to point of order.
 The President-The gentleman will state his point of order.
 MT. Boone-The morning hour has expired before the motion to reconsider was put before the House.
 The President-The Chair is os the opinion that under the rules the mo- tion to reconsider may be brought at any time before the Convention ad- journs during the morning session. The point of order is overruled.
 MT. Waddeli-I will state that I voted for the adoption of tho section, and against the adoption of the am,nd- ment and l am still of the game opinion that l was at that tim. shall vote the same way, sIt the distinguished gentleman from Mont gomery requested me to make the loint. and l did 20, anI I now yield the floor to him.
 MT. Oates-I have but little more to say than l said before upon this pro- position. It will te remembered. however. that the vote on division was very nearly equal. There was a ma ,ority only of three votes in favor of tabling. In the event it is reconsider ed-my motion before was to strike out that section. and my motion would De to reconsider. and to strike out and insert the following: At the expira- tlon or the term of office of the five chancellors now in office. there shall no longer be a separate chancery court in this State. and thereupon it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pro- Vide by law for the judges of the Cir- cult Court to have and exercise equity Jurisdiction in all cases as fully and completely as the said chancellors are now empowered to do; provided, that the same general forms for pleading in equity cases as are now provided by law shall prevail, and an equity docket for causes be kept in said circuit courts. and be transferred to law courts. as provided by law"
 Now, gentlemen of the Convention. the chancery courts would continue, of course the chancellors would con- tinue until the expiration of the term Tor which they are elected. two years or more. Now. is there any reason for continuing this separate chancery system? There are but four States in the Union that now retain the chan cery system. I understand that one of the purposes of this Convention is re- form In all departments Of our State government, and it seems to me that here Is necessity for one. The chan cery system was estab ablishe,I by act of Parliament. and maintained for many centuries. and there is no such thing as a separate chancery court now in Great Britain.
 MT. Walker-Is 1t not a fact that in Great Britain where that has been done that they have courts, judges sit ting all the time. as equity judges alone. and that in the courts in this country. where the separation of the courts has been made in the States. then in all the larger places. judges who are confined exclusively to the disposition of chancery causes, say even in Great Britain. and States of this country where they have under taken to abolish these courts, they are as a matter of fact still in existence. as SeDarate pOIIftV courts
 MT. Oates-Mr. President, have seen that myself I have been in the law courts in London. and have observed their workings. There are a number of Judges who have law jurisdiction and have equity Jurisdiction. and that Is by assignment just like it Is in some of the States of this Union. The judges where there was more than one in one locality. they may be assigned to perform certain duties, but 1t is not a permanency at all. Here there is no necessity for maintaining the separate equity Jurisdiction. The Judiciary cally the abolition. except in name k the Chancery system. Retained it in name only. Why not abolish 1t and have equity Jurisdiction conferred up- on the lower court? Now here in the city of Montgomery. I have observed- because I practice sometimes In that court-the City Court where the equity Jurisdiction has been conferred upon that court for some years past that Judge Sayre does a great deal of tk-'t kind of work and does 1t remarkably well. and does 1t frequently. when he is not engaged In the trial of law cases. Such is the fact in other courts, and why is the necessity for the retention of this system? I cannot see 1t. It seems to me that it is an unnecessary expense. Every one knows that the chancery is the most expensive court, and why retain 1t? Why. sir. on visit some years ago to California I had occasion to visit some of the courts there and observe closely their judicial system. which is said to be model one. and believe 1t. They have no separate chancery system at all. and there the courts are all organized for the purpose of doing business and doing 1. eXpeditiously and it is so dona. While 1t is statutory, a rule prevails in those courts where a suit is brought cn a note if after ten days notice or SC rvice of a summons. and the plea IS not filed. the clerk of the court enters up Judgment and issues an execution and th6 Sheriff makes the money. That illustrates the system of progress they make. Now in our chancery sys- tenn, this motion 1 make is not on ac- count of any hostility that l have to anybody connected with it. The chan cellors as a rule are able men, and n fact the ablest chancellors in the State the Hon. w. L. Parks-is one of the best personal friends l ever had.
 f1 T hi