|
to every case and I am not in favor of a
right of removal in every case because it
would create an ultimate amount of con-
fusion and delay which there is enough
confusion and enough delay in the courts
as they are now.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : A
point of inquiry to Delegate Johnson. Does
this include appellate cases, where the su-
perior court would be exercising appellate
jurisdiction?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: No, Mr. Chair-
man. It specifically includes only the su-
perior court and the district court.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
anyone wish to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I just missed
your comment, Mr. Chairman. Did you
make a comment?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): I
said I was a little in doubt, as to where
you have an appeal from administrative
tribunal to the superior court where the
superior court would be exercising appellate
jurisdiction. For what purpose does Dele-
gate Dukes rise?
DELEGATE DUKES: To speak in favor
of the amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): The
delegate may proceed.
DELEGATE DUKES: Mr. Chairman,
there is no question, I suppose, in the minds
of any lawyer who practices to any degree
before the courts of the State that the
right of refusal is used from time to time.
I agree with Judge Powers that it is abused
far more than it is used correctly. I can-
not recall that I have ever filed an affidavit
of removal in a civil case, except once, and
that time the other lawyer took weeks be-
fore the trial. I can think of ten or twelve
times it has been used the morning of the
trial. Nevertheless the right is very impor-
tant. It gives a chance for the client, for
the party bringing suit, not to have his
case heard before the judge whom he feels
would be prejudiced.
It is not always a question of whether
or not the judge wants to be prejudiced. It
is very important to my mind that clients
not have their cases heard before a preju-
diced court. The issues should be presented
to the judge and have him rule on it. The
problem is to present the issues and the
judge may remove himself. The fact is no
judge I know of ever bothers to force a
person to sustain his affidavit.
|
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Dukes, I am afraid your time has ex-
pired.
DELEGATE DUKES: I do not think
the right is worth the cause.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : I
think the ten-minute time on debate has
expired.
I think the Chair can stretch the rule
for 30 seconds.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to just ask a question, and that
was if somebody would please direct me,
what section of the present Constitution
provides for this right?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Will
Delegate Kiefer give her that information?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, article 4,
section 8. You will find it on page 342 of
your blue book, your bound book.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Are
you now ready for the question, a vote on
Amendment No. 57? For what purpose does
Delegate Weidemeyer rise?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President, I wanted to ask Delegate John-
son if in view of the fact that Personal
Rights and Preamble has a specific recom-
mendation on this matter, and when our
report comes up, everyone will have ample
opportunity to study it and come in with
any amendments and suggestions or
changes and corrections as they might
have, it is rather difficult for us at this
time to g^et amendments to amendments, to
correct all possible objections. I am just
wondering if Delegate Johnson, without
considering any defeat in any way on this
matter, would withdraw it and then come
in with amendments to the recommendation
of personal rights and preamble when that
comes up, and I think then we can better
consider it by amendments to that, rather
than with hurried amendments to the
amendment that he has brought in today.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Will
Deleg-ate Johnson yield to that question?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman
and Delegate Weidemeyer, in spite of the
fact that I was given to understand that
our amendment was a better answer to the
problem than that which has thus far been
prepared by the Committee on Personal
Rights and the Preamble, if there is con-
fusion in the mind of the delegate, and I
might also add that apparently a number
of the members of the Committee on Per-
|
