|
if necessary on the complete range of law
enforcement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, you
have about a minute and a half.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee: I
respectfully suggest to Delegate Grant
that I believe the necessary functions to be
performed by an officer as an adjunct to
the judicial system such as he mentions
might be performed by a member of the
executive department under the rule-making
power of the Court of Appeals; so I do
not think that 'the absence of this amend-
ment in the constitution would prohibit or
in any way prejudice the operation of the
judicial system.
May I also say to Delegate Carson that
everything he said good about his sheriff
in his county applies to the sheriff in my
county. He is an efficient, capable and con-
scientious elected official. However, we do
not need this constitutional amendment to
let him continue in office for the balance
of his elective term, nor do we need this
constitutional provision in this draft to al-
low the legislature or local government to
provide for continuance of such an office.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Bushong arise?
DELEGATE BUSHONG: I want to ask
Delegate Mudd a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before you do that,
is there any delegate who desires to speak
in favor of the amendment?
(There was no response.)
If not, Delegate Mudd, do you yield to
a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bushong.
DELEGATE BUSHONG: Delegate
Mudd, the sheriff is responsible and under
bond for the issuing of all levies and ex-
ecutions and if ordered to sell, must do so.
Who is going to replace that function, and
if he does not do it, who is going to be re-
sponsible to the people, and be suable on
his bond, as the sheriff is?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Any other official
who by rule and who is under bond could
be bound to do that by rule of court.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else desire to
speak in favor of the amendment? Delegate
Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: I am sorry,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak against the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone desire to
speak in favor? Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee, I think a few
weeks ago we discussed natural resources
in the constitution, and I deem this more
important perhaps than natural resources.
Therefore, I would urge the adoption of
this particular amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Boileau to speak in opposition to
the amendment.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, Amendment No. 60 is
only simply an offer of flexibility. It does
in fact cut out that body by inference in
our new constitutional setup who can best
determine the need for a sheriff at that
local level; and that body is the new county
government, which will, under the new sys-
tem, have greater authority, greater re-
sponsibility, and I am sure, greater knowl-
edge of the local needs of their communi-
ties than will the General Assembly as a
whole.
Silence, as Delegate Schneider says, is by
far the best way to deal with this problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discus-
sion? Are you ready for the question? The
Clerk will sound the quorum bell.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
could I direct a question to Delegate Moser.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, can
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MOSER: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Moser,
under the local government provisions,
would the General Assembly have the
power to pass a law which provides for the
office of sheriff in these various counties
perhaps on different terms and conditions
for different counties?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: The General As-
sembly would be able to withdraw the
power to have a sheriff generally and then
|
