Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/439

 12. SIOUSSAT: ENGLISH STATUTES 425 over this same matter ; but the parties we find taking exactly opposite positions from that which they assumed, respectively, in Maryland. However, the Proprietors here receded from their position, and, in 1712, approved an Act which adopted the English common law and such statutes as were deemed applicable to the Constitution of the Province.^ A somewhat similar law was passed in North Carolina, in 1715. Of more direct bearing upon the course of events in Mary- land is the experience of her northern neighbor, Pennsylvania, where legal controversies similar to that which we have to follow in Maryland were taking place just a few years before 1722. The efficacy of the English statute law, in comparison with that of local legislation, came up in connection with the unwillingness of the Quakers to take an oath, and their claim that an affirmation was equally valid for legal proceedings.^ More closely analogous to the issues developed in Mary- land, however, was the evolution of the courts of judicature in Pennsylvania. In the course of a contest between Governor Evans and the Assembly, the former issued an ordinance to establish courts; in which the judges were directed to hear and determine cases " as near as conveniently may be to the laws of England, and according to the laws and usages " of the Province. In equity cases, they were to " observe " as near as may be the practice and proceedings of the High Court of Chancery in England. Against this establishment of courts by ordinance the Assembly remonstrated, but to little purpose, and the quarrel dragged on through subsequent administrations.^ The constitutional points in dispute lie without the scope of our consideration, but the reference to the laws of England concerns us directly. Furthermore, in 1718, Governor Keith and the Council fell out over the commissions of the judges. Should they run in the name of the Governor merely — as had been the case — or should they not rather run in the name of the King, with ^McCrady, E.: The History of South Caroh'na under the Proprietary Government pp. 247-8, 51 T ff. Reinsch: Engh'sh Common Law, pp. 49-50. 'Shepherd, W. R.: History of Proprietary Government in Pennsyl- vania, Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. VI., pp. 351-369,
 * Shepherd: Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania, pp. 386 ff.