|
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: May I just
finish my sentence, Mr. Chairman? For
those judges who are capable there is no
law that says they cannot open up their
offices or go to work for a law firm. There
are plenty of good lawyers all over the
State of Maryland.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Does anyone care to speak against the
amendment?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Again I
find myself helping my good friend, the
Chairman.
I found that this system is very good to
ask the judges to come back and try cases.
I do not think it is going to be abused by
the Court of Appeals; the chief judge
backed by the whole Court of Appeals has
that prerogative.
Who does the questioning get directed
to, if some judge gets an assignment and
some one else does not get it?
The one who does not says the Court of
Appeals and the other judges have ruled
against him. So I want to abide by their
wishes.
I remember many happy days in the
Anne Arundel bar when your father was
here and I loved to try cases before him,
and when he was retired at seventy I
wished many times that he was back on the
bench; he was well able until the day he
passed away to try cases. I do not think
that the Court of Appeals is going to abuse
this.
We are going to have plenty of judges
over seventy. A lot of them I know are
well able to try cases and when as Dele-
gate Rosenstock has said, we will call on
that reserve of human energy, knowledge
and wisdom and give them a little work
now and then, it would make their de-
clining days much happier.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
There is about one minute remaining;
would Delegate Johnson wish to designate
someone to speak?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Is this under
controlled time?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
We are under controlled time.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I did not real-
ize that. I have no one in particular. I as-
sume there is some additional time re-
maining under uncontrolled time, is that
correct?
|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Yes.
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I will yield to
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, I know this is an age
where youth must be served, but it seems
to be arbitrary and almost stupid to reject
the wisdom of those who have served in
the public service and demonstrated their
ability merely because they reach the
arbitrary age of seventy.
If I had my own preference, I think a
man could continue after seventy except
upon the recommendation that he should
retire by a disability commission.
History is full of examples where men
in their seventies and indeed eighties were
able to carry on great services for their
country.
Cato the Elder continued leading until
his eighties. Was there a greater speaker
than Winston Churchill? Observe how
long he continued to contribute.
Supreme Court Justice Hughes, Holmes
and Hugo Black would be denied the priv-
ilege of serving in an emergency status in
the courts of this State.
We draw here again upon the federal
example where for instance in the Court
of Appeals in the District of Columbia we
have three retired judges serving when
they are asked to. In this State one of the
judges in the intermediate court had been
an attorney general and deputy attorney
general unless he was called upon to dis-
qualify himself.
The Court of Appeals had to designate
a trial judge to hear those appeals. How
much wiser and how much less of a drain
on the manpower of the trial court judges
if they had been able to designate one of
the distinguished judges of the Court of
Appeals to sit in the intermediate court of
appeals.
I see no reason on earth for denying this
flexibility that the majority recommends
by virtue of their proposal. I cannot see the
argument. I know the judge that my
learned friend across the aisle referred to.
It was my privilege to appear before Judge
Chester. I must say that in his disability
his intellectual vigor was the equal of
|
