|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any person de-
si iv to speak in favor of the amendment?
(There was no response.)
If not, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion : What we are considering is a sub-
ject of overriding importance to the suc-
cess of the Convention. What we are trying
to do is get a plan that will produce the
best judges.
What makes a good judge? Of course, a
good judge must be honest. He must be of
unquestioned integrity. He must have
learning. He must have scholarship, and he
must have sobriety. These, I say, go, with-
out saying, and there are ways in which
the voters can pass upon these qualifica-
tions.
But there are other and rarer qualifica-
tions that distinguish the mediocrities
from the others. Those are more difficult:
patience, an unruffled temperament, a per-
sonality that assures and creates confidence
in the judiciary. If the common people do
not have confidence in our judiciary, our
whole democratic system fails.
Above that, a judge must have a wide
knowledge of the social and economic con-
ditions of the area he is to serve. That is
important because ninety-eight percent of
the people that come before the courts are
there on pleas of guilty. Questions of learn-
ing and scholarship and legal technicalities
are of secondary importance.
He must know the frailties of human na-
ture, what motivates them. He must be
compassionate and administer even-handed
justice, and make a reality of what is blaz-
ing above the Supreme Court Building:
"Equal Justice Under Law."
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone want
to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Kahl?
DELEGATE KAHL: I think you will
have more politics. I resent a nominating
commission to say who my judges are
going to be. I am not a lawyer. I am not
even a housewife, yet; but I am a citizen
of Maryland. I want to take part in what
happens in Maryland. Someone said the
citizenry has a part. I do not see where
they have any part in the selection process.
I urge you to vote for our amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hargrove.
|
DELEGATE HARGROVE: As a prac-
ticing attorney, very often we are called
upon by the courts to prepare memoranda
and information for the benefit of the court
in deciding a case.
I think I have such information here for
the delegates.
As for the recent trends so far as the
merit plan is concerned throughout the
United States, we heard a lot of talk about
this system not being workable and being
rejected by many other states in toto. That
is not tru2. I want to tell you about the
recent use of the Niles Plan or Missouri
Plan or the merit plan.
In Missouri the plan itself is being ex-
panded to cover a wider araa of that State.
In 1966, it was extended to cover the lowest
court of Kansas City. It is to be voted on
in April to cover the whole county of St.
Louis. In 1966, Alaska extended the plan to
the district court. It was formerly only ap-
plied to the public courts and the superior
courts of that State.
In 1966 Colorado extended the plan to all
courts of record in the state of Colorado.
In 1966 Vermont applied the plan to all
its courts.
In 1965 in Utah the legislature failed to
approve the merit plan and the people rose
up in that State in protest. In 1967 they
brought the plan to cover the entire state
and this year the plan was applied through-
out the State on all levels.
In 1967 Oklahoma sent the plan to all
courts filled by gubernatorial appointments.
Previously it only applied to the juvenile
courts of that State.
In 1967 Arkansas applied it for the first
time, but did not apply it to the lowest
level.
In New York the plan was recommended
to the bar association which rejected the
Constitution of New York primarily be-
cause it did not include this reform. I want
to add that New York City uses a nomi-
nating commission for the selection of
judges who are appointad by the mayor of
New York City. This is evidently enough
that the nominating committee plan is a
workable plan. I might add also that there
has not been a jurisdiction retreating from
this plan to some other system after hav-
ing once tried it.
I urge your rejection of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
|
