|
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I
have difficulty in knowing just what this
language means.
Could the attorney general, for example,
be given authority to investigate the ethical
conduct of somebody who held public office ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan, the
Chair cannot hear you. Hold the microphone
very close to your mouth, please.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Could the at-
torney general, for example, be given au-
thority to investigate the ethical conduct
of some public official where there is no
question of law involved at all? I just do
not know. I really do not know what the
attorney general's responsibilities as chief
legal officer of the State are, unless you go
back and — he shall represent the State in
all civil cases and represent the State —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan,
may the Chair cut across? I understood
Delegate Bamberger to say in response to
several questions asked previously that he
was using the phrase chief legal officer in
the same sense in which the Committee
uses it in the first sentence and that its
meaning was as there stated as amplified
in the report of the committee and, secondly,
I understood him to say in response to
questions that he did not concede that it
would not or could not be the responsibility
of a chief legal officer to make almost any
kind of factual investigation.
Did the Chair correctly understand you,
Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: What I am try-
ing to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I think
that language of this sort will just result
in litigation, as to what the language means,
if the General Assembly investigates some
function in the attorney general, why then
somebody is going to contend that that is
not one of his responsibilities as chief legal
officer of the State.
I really think it better to leave it the
way it is in the committee recommendation
and rely on the legislature to exercise
restraint in the non-legal functions that it
gives to the Attorney General.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to suggest to the Com-
|
mittee that I am just at a complete loss to
understand why the Committee Chairman
is unwilling to accept this language. It
seems to me, or at least since 10:00 o'clock
this morning, the debate has ranged. around
only one question and that is not whether
or not we should have the state legal officer
elected, but whether or not the attorney
general should be the chief legal officer.
We thought if we could see clearly that we
had an elected attorney general who would
be appointed as a lawyer for the State, it
would be a perfectly satisfactory arrange-
ment, but every attempt that has been
made all morning to clearly state in the
language what is clearly stated by the ma-
jority recommendation has been met with
frustration. I think this is finally the
amendment which should bring us all to-
gether and clearly state the majority and
minority and everyone else's opinion that
the legal officer of the State should clearly
be nothing more than the legal officer of
the State.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: If everyone
will take his blue page and read with me
on page 2, starting at line 4, this is what
the Bamberger amendment will do. It will
say, "and shall have such other powers and
duties with respect to civil and criminal
cases or proceedings and with respect to his
responsibilities as chief legal officer of this
state as may be prescribed by law/'
This is the exact same thing that was
tried by Delegate Gallagher this morning.
It amounts to exactly the same thing. If it
gets any more than the 38 or 39 votes that
Delegate Gallagher got this morning, I will
be surprised.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment ?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I have to
respond to Delegate Rybczynski to say that
is absolutely not what it does. The amend-
ment which was sponsored by Delegate
Gallagher and others this morning which I
understand is Amendment No. 1 struck
from this provision all of the explicit
powers of the attorney general and said he
shall have only those powers which the
General Assembly prescribes for him. This
does not do that. This does not delete from
the blue sheet any of the explicit powers
prescribed for the attorney general and
merely says those powers which the Gen-
eral Assembly may investigate in the attor-
ney general are powers as a lawyer, not as
|
