|
Whole yesterday concerning the creation
and appointment of commissioners by the
judiciary was arrived at mainly out of the
fear that we would perhaps be retaining the
committing magistrate system that now
very unfortunately flourishes throughout
Maryland.
When the minorities strongly and re-
peatedly supported the Committee on the
Judicial Branch on a unified court system,
it willfully, knowingly, and happily wiped
out the magistrate system and the commit-
ting magistrate system as it exists in
Maryland today.
A new creature was thereby born in
Maryland as a result of the Judicial Com-
mittee's action and we named him commis-
sioner. In the opinion of the minority any
resemblance to the commissioners in the
committing magistrate was purely coinci-
dental. The minority committee wanted to
allow the reapportioned legislature an op-
portunity to meet the new responsibilities
partially because of the pleas of the Legis-
lative Branch Committee to strengthen
this important branch of government, and
because we felt the legislature would not
only rise to the occasion but would relieve
the court of this awesome judicial re-
sponsibility.
I can appreciate the fears of the Com-
mittee of the Whole although personally we
see no connection between justice of the
peace and the commissioners. I can live
with this action although as a practicing
attorney, I will cringe every time our judi-
cial system is given a black eye because of
some charge, however unfounded, of poli-
tics and patronage.
Perhaps it will all work out and the
system will work well. I sincerely hope it
will. Undoubtedly in the minds of some
delegates late this Friday evening is the
thought that that was yesterday and why
bring it up today? Several reasons why
really.
First because I deem it important to set
the record straight. Second, our actions of
today on the district court set-up may re-
quire us to reconsider our actions on the
commissioners. Third, this appointment
power, as it now stands, must be consid-
ered in the light of what checks and bal-
ances we are going to retain in the people
on judicial discretion. Fourth, if we can
ponder the constitutional history of Mary-
land over the last hundred years, certainly
we can consider our actions of less than
24 hours ago, particularly when we are
still at sea.
|
So with nothing more than a backward
glance and the satisfaction, slight as it
may be, that I said something for me at
least that had to be said, I now embark
with you on our journey to Missouri by
way of the River Niles. On the matter of
selection and tenure, the first question the
Convention must decide is are we going
to change our method of selecting and
electing judges? My first inclination as a
traditionalist and admirer of the present
Maryland judiciary and a nongambler, if
you will, when the stakes are high, is to
say emphatically no.
Is it not answer enough to the majority's
proposal calling for nominating commis-
sions and non-competitive elections to point
out that Maryland has had and still has
one of the most outstanding judiciaries in
the country? That over 100 years ago
Maryland departed from a system where
judges were appointed and served during
good behavior because of the hue and cry
from citizens who rightfully wanted some
say in the judiciary branch of govern-
ment, that there has been no creditable
evidence offered that the judiciary in
Maryland will be better under this system.
That by installing a 15-year term, which
is the second largest term in the country,
that Maryland in fact removed judges from
politics many, many, many years ago. That
it would be an erosion of democratic prin-
ciples in our republican form of govern-
ment to refuse the citizens some say on
matters of selecting their judges. That
under the proposed selection and election
system not one popularly elected represen-
tative of the citizens of Maryland has more
than a token voice in the final outcome of
judicial selection and that voice, that lone
voice, will be but a whisper from our gov-
ernor, the chief executive of this great
State, who will be assigned the embarrass-
ing task of picking from as little as two
nominees from a nominating commission
and is then told if that is not enough, that
if he does not pick from this list, the chief
judge who has a representative on the
commission will do so anyway.
If the foregoing is not reason enough for
Maryland to abandon its great heritage
and envied tradition in a' democracy second
to none consider with me the following.
Under the proposal of the majority there
is no manner in which members of the
nominating commission can be held ac-
countable to anyone. There are no guide-
lines for the qualifications of the members
of this commission. We have no guaran-
tee whatsoever that they will have the
|
