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

Again, I have a problem as a lawyer to say how
they could do it and in many of the sections where we have
said shall do something and without setting out any
standards it makes it pretty impossible of enforcement.
I would have to say I would have to vote against
it because again the Committee position is that this is a
very important right that has been with us since 1805. We
do not wish to change that right except to give the Court
of Appeals reasonable regulation of it. That is all I can
say about it and I would have to oppose it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: What we are doing is we are
really broadening the Willomer amendment. It seems to me
this says shall provide for the right of removal. That
neans in all cases equity, condemnation, ejectment of
land cases — I can't really see any limitation.
The Court, as I interpret this, is limited to
procedural matters. There may be some flexibility, but
it is much broader than the Willomer amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Simplicity is sometimes not