|
|
|
Mr. Carmichael did not see the point of the gentle-
man's objection, and asked if he wanted to strike out the
power of removal.
Mr. Kilbourn. —Certainly not
Mr. Carmichael then continued. He was in favor of
some parts of the amendment; thought fifteen years was
too short a time for a good judge and too long a time for a
bad judge. He favored the report of the committee, not
because it was the report of the committee, but because
it was right. He should also have preferred the appoint-
ment system, but the question was whether the judges to
be elected under this constitution should be subjected to
party influences in desiring to be re-elected, and he
thought they should not.
Mr. Kilbourn read from the Declaration of Rights of
1851 the section relative to the independence of the ju-
diciary, which he said was precisely similar to the section
in the Bill of Rights as passed by this Convention. That
Convention had provided that the term of office should
be for ten years, and that action had been approved by
the people. The term principle was no more inconsistent
with this Declaration of Right now than then. That
Convention declared the independence of the judiciary,
but they did not deem that independence to consist of
removing the judge from the control of the majority of
the people.
Mr. Carmichael did not suppose the argument was
worth anything one way or the other, but he would say
that it was contended that all the great men in the Con-
vention of 1851 had voted against this term principle,
and he knew that hundreds of votes had been cast against
the constitution on that account.
On motion of Mr. Barry, the committee rose, reported
progress and asked leave to sit again.
The special order, being the consideration of the first
supplementary section to the report of the committee
upon legislative department, was then taken up. It is as
follows: "No person shall be incompetent as a witness on
account of race or color, unless hereafter so declared by
act of the General Assembly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
320
|
|
|
 |
