|
of the judiciary has come before our Com-
mittee and urged the adoption of this se-
lection process.
Now, please bear in mind, in spite of the
arguments you have heard, we are dealing
under section 5.14 with the selection proc-
ess. It has absolutely nothing to do with the
election process, and we will deal with that
later on.
May I point out to you that in our tele-
phone interview with Judge Holt he was
asked: "Judge, did fraud and corruption
precede the adoption of the Missouri Plan
in Missouri twenty-five years ago?"
Judge Holt responded, "Yes, it did."
Fellow delegates, is there any evidence
whatsoever of fraud or corruption in the
judiciary of Maryland? I submit to you
that of course there is not. If there is a
bar association in any county of this State
that has recommended this procedure, it is
yet to transmit its request and its efforts
and its advice to us with respect to this;
but, on the contrary, we know that the
Baltimore County Bar overwhelmingly op-
posed; we know that the Calvert County
Bar overwhelmingly opposed ; and we know
in Baltimore City when this plan was
originally introduced in its original form
by Judge Niles that one-third voted for it,
one-third voted against it, and one-third
said it had some merit, but there were some
reservations.
The question was this: Do you want the
highest elected officer of your State, the
governor, to be solely responsible for the
appointment of your judges? Do you want
someone you can go to and say, Mr. Gov-
ernor, we disagree with it, it was a bad
appointment.
Or do you want to open the door to
having twenty-four nominating commis-
sions and the insidious type of politicking
that goes on behind closed doors? The nomi-
nating commission answers to no one. The
governor may just shrug his shoulders and
say, "I am compelled by the Constitution
to select one of two persons from this nomi-
nating commission." I am not going to vote
for a plan like that. I urge you not to vote
for a plan like that.
I urge you to adopt the minority com-
mittee amendment, which is a very fair
compromise on this plan. There is not one
State in the entire country that has adopted
the Missouri plan in the entire State on
all the levels of its courts. I submit to you
that Missouri, not Maryland, is the "Show
|
Me" State. Maryland happens to be the
Free State. Let's keep it that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Mudd.
You have five minutes to close this por-
tion of the debate.
DELEGATE MUDD: I would like to
yield the remaining time of controlled de-
bate to Delegate Sherbow to speak in oppo-
sition to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would like
especially to ask the non-members of the
bar to listen very carefully to what I have
to say. The lawyers have been debating
this for a long time. They are aware of
the terms. They are aware of the words
that have been used. I would like to talk
to you, as well as the members of the bar
who are here assembled, and talk to you
about the history of Maryland.
First, let me say that I am not at all
surprised that the minority has said we
should adopt this plan for the highest
court and the next highest court. This has
been the way in which all judicial reform
has taken place in Maryland, where the
lawyers are concerned. We are a very timid
lot when it comes to moving forward, but
the people are not timid, and the people
all too frequently are way ahead of the bar.
Now, we did have the most disgraceful
kind of corruption in the bar of Maryland
back in the Civil War days, and it con-
tinued until the people would not stand
for it any longer; but it was the people of
this State who rose up in 1882 in one of
the most glorious victories for reform ever
in this State ended that kind of political
chicanery in our courts.
We had leaders of political parties who
controlled our courts, and one of the five
judges who fought with this reform move-
ment was the same man who marched at
the head of the 6th Maryland Regiment
down Pratt Street in Baltimore with only
a cane as his protection against the mob
that assaulted them. Later he became the
great Judge Brown in Baltimore. That was
a victory.
If you will read the history of Maryland
you will find that it was a victory that
was won, and it stayed won.
Then as time went on, and this becomes
important, because the minority tells you
this is a matter of election and not selec-
tion — oh, no. This is a matter of selection.
|
