|
and should be continued as an elective offi-
cer of the State.
I might mention three respects in which
I think he performs unusual duties, and
duties which do not neatly fit into the cate-
gory of the executive branch. One is the
fact that he represents all state depart-
ments and renders written opinions which
are published. These opinions are not only
highly regarded by the courts, frequently
cited, but they are relied on as evidence
of administrative practice, aside from the
worth of their legal reasoning.
A second thing is that the attorney gen-
eral represents the legislature and per-
forms a most useful function there. It is
of great advantage to the legislature to
have the advice of the man at the forma-
tive stage of legislation who must defend
it in the courts. His opinion is worthwhile,
not only as to constitutionality, but I know
from experience that in many instances
without getting into the policy field at all
the attorney general or his aides are able
to advise the legislature as to the deletion
of a certain clause which might cause legal
difficulties without the change in language,
or that proposed legislation may cut across
some existing statute or other part of the
Code.
That is of immense value, and if the
legislature had its own counsel who would
not have to defend his opinion in court, it
would present an entirely different picture.
The office of attorney general was set up
in its present form in 1916 by Attorney
General Ritchie and it has continued with-
out change in substance, although it has
enlarged, of course, with the development
of the State. I believe that the influence of
attorneys general in an advisory ca-
pacity has been of great value to the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
I yield five minutes to Delegate Bamberger.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man and ladies and gentlemen of the Con-
vention: I wish to point out to the Conven-
tion that in this debate we are in what
seems to me to be an unusual position. The
debate as presented by Delegate Mason for
the minority was directed to the issue of
whether the attorney general should be
elected or appointed. He directed the de-
bate to that point, and quite properly, be-
cause the amendment which he proposed to
offer not only provided that the attorney
|
general would be included in the constitu-
tion as a constitutional officer, but also
that the attorney general would be elected
rather than appointed.
However, the amendment before us does
not include that language, because as a
matter of procedure of this convention, we
may not now vote upon the issue of whether
the attorney general is elected or appointed.
It seems to me that we are in a type of
"Alice in Wonderland" situation where we
are going to debate whether the attorney
general should be elected or appointed, and
then are going to vote not on that issue,
but on whether it is a constitutional office
or not.
I think they are very separate issues. I
personally do believe that the attorney
general is a constitutional office, that it
should be included in the constitution. But
once I know what the duties of the attorney
general are, and what his relationship to
the executive, to the legislative and to the
judicial branches is to be, then I would be
prepared to consider whether he should be
an elected or appointed official.
I would request the Chair, before this
debate is concluded and the vote is taken
on this issue, to advise the Committee of
the Whole whether or not, despite the re-
sults of this vote, if it is decided that the
attorney general is a constitutional office,
that some amendments must be offered to
Committee Recommendation EB-1, not only
to put the office in the constitution, but to
state the duties of that office, and to state
whether the office is an elective or ap-
pointive one.
I should like to be assured that when I
know what the attorney general's responsi-
bilities will be, that I will have an oppor-
tunity to vote on the issue of whether he
is to be elected or appointed, despite this
issue.
However, let me address myself to the
issue which is now before us, which is the
issue of whether he is to be elected or
appointed.
The attorney general's principal func-
tion is to be the legal adviser, the legal
counsellor, the legal policy maker for the
governor and all of the executive branch.
That is his principal function, as proven
by the division of work within the office.
The Committee Report shows that there
are now 60 assistant attorneys general, ten
of whom are engaged in criminal work, ap-
peals of criminal cases to the Court of Ap-
peals, and habeas corpus and post-convic-
|
