1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman and Fellow
Delegates, I want to argue for the Scanlan amendment with
all the earnestness that I can muster.
I have practiced law since 1937 and lean say
that over that period of time it is my considered opinion
that the use of the power to remove has been an implement
in the obstruction of justice. Anyone with experience in
this field knows that it is very seldom used to really
get a fair trial. It is used simply to delay and how can
you have a good system of administration of justice when
you have built into it a ready made system of delay.
Now, the present law is rather incongruous.
It refused to grant an absolute right of removal in serious
criminal cases, but it gives an absolute right of removal
in civil cases.
In other words, where a man may be incarcerated,
the matter of removal is strictly in the discretion of
the Court, whereas if the matter involves property, no
matter how small the amount of property involved, then an
absolute right of removal pertains. How could the law be
more absurd?