|
But then he says it "may make some
sense in basically rural states," which I
say is equivalent to rural counties, "with
nothing but small, one-man, part-time
prosecutors. It just does not happen in
metropolitan areas, however."
And then Mr. Moylan in his remarks —
and I might suggest Mr. Moylan is Presi-
dent of the State's Attorneys Association
of Maryland — to the Maryland Municipal
League, some months ago, said this —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes,
two minutes of your time is left.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I will just sum-
marize his comments by saying that he
makes it clear that at the prosecuting level
where he is referring to discrepancies from
county to county, it is rather ridiculous
because the city is not as economically
viable as its adjoining county to the north
for a full time assistant state's attorney
to begin at $8,000; whereas, his part-time
counterpart in Baltimore County begins at
$10,000. There are all sorts of inequities
in the system today. I quote a portion of
his statement, "There is a need not today,
but yesterday, and I submit this Conven-
tion had better give some real thought to
restricting the whole governmental system
to meet this incredible law enforcement
problem that is already upon us and we
will realize very drastically it is upon us
within the weeks and months ahead."
The most important argument I would
submit to your consideration is presented
to the people of the country by the Presi-
dent's Commission on Law Enforcement.
That Commission recited all the reasons
for deficiencies at the prosecuting level:
part-time offices, low salaries, too much of
a political atmosphere. They do not sug-
gest an appointive system, but do make it
clear that a non-partisan atmosphere would
be in the public interest.
This is the purpose and thrust of this
amendment, and I urge that you adopt it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions of
the sponsor of the amendment?
Delegate Willoner, do you desire to ques-
tion the sponsor?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes,
will you reply to the question?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
|
DELEGATE WILLONER: The use of
the word "may" would not prohibit the
legislature in the future from making it a
mandatory provision, would it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would say yes,
and we all know the judges do it on a
cross filing basis, and that is statutory.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
Before you state your next question, the
Chair is not clear whether you understood
the Delegate's question.
He said, would the use of the word "may"
in line 5 of your amendment prevent the
legislature from in effect changing that
word to "shall", that is to make the provi-
sion mandatory?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would say no,
sir. I am sorry, I did not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions of the sponsor?
Delegate Jett.
DELEGATE JETT: I did not quite un-
derstand, Delegate Byrnes, did you say that
Attorney Moylan was in favor of this pro-
vision?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I said State's
Attorney Moylan is on record as urging
that we consider the state's attorneys of-
fices in the state as part of the entire law
enforcement effort, along with judges,
sheriffs, et cetera. The state's attorneys
en mass indicated to the Executive Branch
Committee that they would look with favor
upon this kind of approach, that they be
cross filed, but I do not suggest that State's
Attorney Moylan personally said "I want
cross filing." He did not say that.
THE CHAIRMAN: The time of Dele-
gate Byrnes has expired.
Delegate Marion, did you have a further
question, or do you want debate?
DELEGATE MARION: I had one fur-
ther question, just following up the previ-
ous question.
THE CHAIRMAN: A very brief
question?
DELEGATE MARION: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: State it please.
|
