|
"The governor shall," and to me that means
it is a mandate, which the governor would
oppose.
When we elect a governor we elect him
because we think he is driven by certain
things; he stands for certain things; and
it is because of those things and his char-
acter that he is elected as governor. It is
unreasonable to assume that as governer he
would refuse to uphold the Constitution,
so for that reason I would like to ask Mr.
Mudd a question, and then, according to
his answer, address myself to the Con-
vention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: If we would strike
the last sentence from 5.14, according to
your previous statement, would you still
maintain the form of a mandate to the
governor?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, because you
lose the word "shall" in the last line. I
think striking the last sentence leaves a
void in the section.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: You think it leaves
a void that would be taken care of when
he takes his oath to uphold the Con-
stitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: No. I think the
governor would be very derelict, in my
judgement, and not a good governor if he
did not exercise the appointive power he
is given here, but the possibility neverthe-
less exists that, for reasons known only
unto him, he might not appoint, and a va-
cancy could exist for ad infinitum, which
could indefinitely affect the court calendar
or seriously affect the administration of
justice.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: It seems to me that
the Committee on Style might be able tc
rewrite the amendment that Delegate
Mitchell and I have, because we have a
duplication of words meaning the same
thing. Our idea in the amendment and the
idea that I had in striking the last sentence
I think go to the same point. If it does nol
change the meaning of it, I wonder if the
|
Committee on Style could make the neces-
sary changes in language.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question has to
be decided on the amendment. We cannot
simple decide it in principle and leave it to
the Committee on Style.
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: My last statement
in support of the amendment is that I hope
that the delegates will support this with a
favorable vote, because it is a very vital
issue not only with respect to conflict of
interest, but also in mandating the gov-
ernor to do something which one reason-
ably would expect him to accomplish on
his own.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Marvin Smith to speak in
opposition.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to make a few quick
statements to you.
First of all, the proposition that a pro-
vision in the constitution would in itself
be unconstitutional under that constitution
is to me a novelty I fail to comprehend.
Secondly, I would say to you, sir, that
this is a safety valve, purely and simply.
If this is put into the constitution, I am
sure that no governor will ever have to
exercise that power. If it is not in the con-
stitution, then we could well find ourselves,
because of some dispute of some kind that
has arisen, in a situation in which the
courts of this state could be paralyzed
while the litigation surrounding a potential
writ of mandamus and whether or not it
could be issued, and the appeals in connec-
tion with it were all fought out.
i
I think that the amendment is a bad
one, and the proposal here is a wise safety
valve.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
[ gate desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
i
Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: I wonder if Dele-
gate Smith would yield to a question?
; THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Smith, will
} you yield to a question from Delegate
J White?
i
j DELEGATE M. SMITH: Yes.
; THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
t DELEGATE WHITE: I wonder if you
3 find the last sentence of section 5.14 which
|
