|
mendations of the Committee on the Pre-
amble and Personal Rights.
Accordingly, we feel that this amendment
should be rejected as mandating in the
constitution and in article V an unneces-
sary addition. I therefore urge you to vote
against the amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Johnson, we are under controlled time.
You have used 1 minute 47 seconds. Do
you wish to allocate the time?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes. I wonder
first if Chairman Mudd would yield for a
question?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Will
Chairman Mudd yield?
DELEGATE MUDD: Gladly.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: If you would
insert any amendment — do you have the
amendment before you?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: If we were to
insert in the amendment on line 5 that
there shall be a right of removal in each
"law" case, would you agree that this
would be a mandate to the Court of Ap-
peals and to the legislature to provide a
similar removal section as is provided un-
der the rule section, so that it would not
apply to equity cases?
DELEGATE MUDD: How about crimi-
nal cases?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: We could say
law and criminal cases.
DELEGATE MUDD: Would it then in-
clude condemnation cases or not?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I do not be-
lieve so.
DELEGATE MUDD: Would I concur in
the amendment then? No, I would not. I
do not think it is necessary to be in article
5 of the Constitution. I think that would
be the answer.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Does the
Chairman feel the right of removal should
be anywhere in the constitution?
DELEGATE MUDD: No.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Why?
DELEGATE MUDD: Because I think it
is the right that can be provided by statute
or by rule. .
|
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Suppose it is
not?
DELEGATE MUDD: Then I feel that
the voters have been unable to impress
their representatives here in Annapolis with
the urgency of such a right.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
I yield whatever other time is remaining
to Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: How much time
is there, sir?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Two
and a half minutes.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): For
what purpose does Delegate Sherbow rise?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would like
to address a question to Chairman Mudd,
which may solve some of these problems.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Will
Delegate Johnson yield the floor?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Do I yield the
floor, yes, of course.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Is it not true
that it is inherent in our judicial system
that if a man cannot receive a fair trial
in the jurisdiction where the case is being
heard, that the court on proper motion may
provide for a change of venue in order to
observe the due process requirement, and
that this not only can be done by law or by
rule but also it is inherent in our law?
DELEGATE MUDD: Absolutely, under
circumstances which would appeal to the
court as preventing a fair and impartial
trial within that jurisdiction.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
we are in a rather strange situation here.
The present Constitution provides for a
removal in not only law cases, but in equity
cases. This may sound strange to you, and
nobody ever seems to have heard of it hav-
ing been done, but even Judge Child did
not know that. Goodness knows, I did not.
We looked it up and this is a fact, that
now in the Constitution there is a right of
removal in equity cases.
I am constrained to agree with you,
Chairman Mudd, in that these are matters
|
