|
Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: I would like to
direct a question to Chairman Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman,
with respect to section 5.24, is a member
of the nominating commission an office of
profit or trust?
DELEGATE MUDD: The nominating
commission is by virtue of an amendment
we adopted this morning without compensa-
tion. Therefore, it is not an office of profit.
DELEGATE MASON: But is it an office
of trust?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I would say
it is an office of trust.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: No further ques-
tions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson,
do you still desire to offer your amendment
K?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: It was in our
minority report. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will
please distribute amendment K. This will
be Amendment No. 49. The Clerk will read
the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 49
to accompany Minority Report JB-1 to
Committee Recommendation JB-1 by Dele-
gates Johnson, Harkness, Hickman, Kahl,
Murphy, Siewierski, and Rush: On page 7
after section 5.24 add the following section :
"Restriction of Judicial Activities. No
judge shall sit in any case wherein he shall
have been of counsel in the case, or wherein
he may have an interest in a case in such
manner as shall be prescribed by rule, or
where any of the parties to a case are re-
lated to him within such degrees as shall
be prescribed by rule."
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Johnson to speak to the amend-
ment.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, our suggestions with
|
respect to the addition of a section of this
nature in our constitution has its roots in
history and tradition.
I call to your attention that a very simi-
lar section appears in Article IV, section 7
of our present Constitution.
It is my understanding that when re-
writing or redrafting a new constitution,
certain sections or certain portions thereof
are deleted; it seems to represent a feeling
that these sections are no longer important,
or perhaps should not be given any atten-
tion or direction.
Now we dressed up considerably old
Article IV, section 7, and what we have in
fact attempted to do is to submit a man-
date to our Court of Appeals and request
our Court of Appeals to set up restrictions
upon judicial activity.
A very quick review of other State con-
stitutions has indicated at least ten state
constitutions that have a similar provision.
It is our understanding that our Court
of Appeals, and I will submit in all proba-
bility, for good reason, or at least for rea-
sons that in the opinion of the Court of
Appeals were good, have not adopted the
so-called conflict of judicial interest, or con-
flict of interest rule, as proposed by the
American Bar Association.
All this does, all our amendment does is
ask our Court of Appeals to provide for
such a rule, and with its history and our
constitution and in other constitutions, we
urge that the Committee of the Whole give
this question serious consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, we
were aware of this provision in the present
Maryland Constitution, and I can assure
you did not treat the matters therein con-
tained lightly.
My notes indicate that the precise ques-
tion was posed to the Committee on the
Judicial Branch, whether this provision in
the present Constitution should be included
in our recommendation for article 5.
The vote to eliminate it was 2 to 1; only
6 voting in favor of including it, and 12
voting to omit it. Those voting to omit,
I am quite confident, were alert to the
situation and thought it was a matter that
might properly be taken care of within the
section 5.31 under the concurrent power of
the Court of Appeals by rule, or the legis-
lature by statute, as it is partially taken
care of now by an existing statute.
|
