|
this amendment, and if it is the view of the
majority, who supported this recommenda-
tion that the language is redundant, I will
not resist it being eliminated. On the other
hand, it was our view that it is in there to
make our intention abundantly clear, and in
the absence of objection from those who
supported the majority recommendation of
the Committee, I have nothing more to say
about that amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: It may be
redundant. We put it in here to make it
evident that there would be a discontinu-
ance if this constitution were adopted by
the people of Maryland, and the county
would again start subsidization of judges
and add to that sum which the State will
pay. For that reason, personally, I would
like to see it retained.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position? Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have a question
for Delegate Rosenstock, if he would yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rosenstock,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Gladly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Do you regard
the word "remuneration" as being synony-
mous with "compensation"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Compen-
sation and remuneration, I think, are al-
most synonymous.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, I should like to ask a question of any-
one who can inform —
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom do you di-
rect your question?
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I really
mean any knowledgeable person, perhaps
Delegate Marion. Wherein is this language
found elsewhere?
THE CHAIRMAN: Lines 15 and 16 of
section 5.23.
|
DELEGATE BURDETTE: And does
Delegate Marion feel that there is force
in Delegate Rosenstock's point that supple-
mentary salaries are really covered by the
language which is alleged to be redundant?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: It is my under-
standing, and I think the understanding of
the Committee that the prohibition against
any supplementation of State salaries is
contained in lines 15 and 16, which is the
first sentence of section 5.23, that the com-
pensation shall be solely by the State; and
I see no purpose whatsoever in saying it
again. I think saying it once in the consti-
tution is enough.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Delegate
Marion, will you yield to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: It just oc-
curred to me that since we voted, although
I abstained, I think, might not this sen-
tence if retained here have the effect of
preventing the judges from being paid any-
thing during the period they are tempo-
rarily recalled?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not
certain that he understands the question.
Are you saying that the retention of the
language in lines 36 and 37 in section 5.24
might prevent payment of remuneration to
a judge recalled for active service under
section 5.22?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That is it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: As I read the
section, as reported by the Committee,
Judge Henderson, this sentence refers to
judges and not to retired judges, because
the second sentence of section 5.24 spe-
cifically refers to retired judges. I would
think this refers to judges and is purely
superfluous in view of the language in 5.23.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Would
taking this out permit a county to give ex-
pense accounts to judges in addition to the
salaries?
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is the
question directed?
|
