|
DELEGATE WILLONER: All right. I
would like to offer, then, Amendment H.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: There are a num-
ber of amendments including Amendment
X which I have offered. In view of the
Chair's ruling that the committee amend-
ment should be considered first, I would
respectfully request that any delegates who
are contemplating suggesting amendments
to this section have theirs distributed so
that at least they will be before the Con-
vention at the time each amendment is
voted on.
I would much prefer voting personally on
the complete elimination, and then going
forward to those amendments which are the
simplest first, since mine happens to be the
next simplest. I do think we ought to have
all of them in front of us.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Very well. The pages will distribute all
amendments to section 8 so that the dele-
gates will have them before them.
The amendment that you wish to take up
first is H, is that right?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: As I under-
stand the Chair's answer to Mr. Moser's
suggestion, all the various amendments
that would mean the section will be taken
up prior to the amendment which has for
its sole purpose the elimination of this sec-
tion. I do not know if my amendment is
going to be voted up or down. If my amend-
ment passes, it would be unnecessary to
consume the time and attention of this As-
sembly in debate upon a section that may
not remain in the Constitution.
I suggest in the interest of time, what-
ever your feeling may be on my amend-
ment, that you deal with it first. If it loses,
you can proceed to the other amendments.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are you willing to accept this?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I think it
would be better procedure. I think that is
the most logical way for everyone to vote
on this.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Very well. We will go back to Delegate
Scanlan's amendment and vote on that first.
Delegate Mitchell.
|
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent, I think it would be appropriate if
Delegate Willoner would state to the body
what the Committee deliberated on with
regard to this section, how it felt about
this section, what its intentions are. This
I think would give meaning to the discus-
sions which will follow.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Well, to ex-
plain it as quickly as possible, the intent
of the Committee was originally to protect
the right that we now have to remove civil
cases absolutely. But after discussion with
several members of this body after the
Committee Report was prepared, I would
call it a compromise position. In any event,
it was a position that would obviate the
problems referred to by Delegates Scanlan
and Powers in a debate that we had on
this when it was in the judicial section.
Committee Amendment H was prepared
which allows the right of removal. The
amendment begins, "In all actions at law."
This excludes the equity aspects of it in
the Committee Report because the Court
of Appeals in a rather strange, but I think
rather proper, decision eliminated equity
from the present Constitution. The amend-
ment states that in all actions at law if a
party suggests in writing that he cannot
have a fair and impartial trial in which
the action is pending, the Court shall by
rule move the trial out of the county.
In other words, this would contemplate
regulation which would permit the court to
require an election within a reasonable
time prior to trial. If they felt ten days or
thirty days prior to trial that an election
would have to be made, then this would
be a proper regulation.
The decisions in this area, because of the
nature of the right, have been extremely
restrictive and have prohibited any regula-
tion in this area whatsoever. The present
provision in section 8 is just far too re-
strictive and allows no flexibility. This
amendment would permit the right of re-
moval which we think is a valid and lawful
safety valve. Where a party feels in a par-
ticular jurisdiction that he cannot have a
fair trial that he can, without having to
establish this to a Court except by way of
an affidavit, have his trial removed. This
could be regulated by the Court of Ap-
peals so that it would not be abused. How-
ever, it is sufficiently and importantly
enough a safety valve that it should be
preserved.
|
