|
then an absolute right of removal pertains.
How could the law be more absurd?
The proposals here are almost a per-
petuation of the present law. A later sec-
tion proposes in felony cases that there be
an absolute right of removal. In mis-
demeanor cases and there are very serious
cases of misdemeanor involving very seri-
ous incarceration, this would still be a
matter of discretion. How could anything
be more absurd to say where a man's free-
dom is at stake it is in the discretion of
the court, but where a man's property is
at stake, there is an absolute right of
removal?
I would like earnestly to request that the
members of this Convention support the
amendment.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Anyone desire to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: A point of in-
quiry. I got lost somewhere. We have a
Scanlan amendment and we have a Wil-
loner amendment that I think has been
discussed but not distributed. Which one
are we talking about? What one are we
going to talk about? Which one are we
going to vote on?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Scanlan amendment, No. 12, will be
voted on first.
Is there any further discussion?
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates: The right of removal
in civil cases and for that matter the right
of removal in criminal cases is one of the
most fundamental and I submit one of the
most important rights that an individual
has when faced with the courts in this
State. I have already been told that this
right has been in our Constitution for over
a hundred years. It appears in Section 7
of Article II.
I submit that the proponents of this
measure to remove this particular section
from our Constitution know full well the
likelihood that in all probability they will
in effect be doing away with the right of
removal in either civil or criminal cases.
I ask you to consider with me the fol-
lowing prospects. We have been told that
the citizens of this State shall not have any
say in the selection of their judges. We
have been told that the citizens of this
|
State shall not have any say in the election
of qualified attorneys to the office of judge,
and now the proponents of this measure
want to tell you and the other citizens of
this State that our fellow citizen shall have
absolutely no say in who shall judge them
and who shall judge their cases.
If we remove this right of removal, we
will take out the precedent that has been
established in our Constitution. If we will
remove this right of removal, we will not
have the right of removal as we have in
Rule 542 of the Rules of Procedure.
There has been a move afoot for years
to do away with the right of removal be-
cause of the charge that, although some-
times correct, this right of removal is used
for delay. I submit that many, many times
it enables a litigant to have a fair and
impartial trial either in front of a fair and
impartial judge or a fair and impartial
jury. If you remove ths right of removal,
you are telling litigants everywhere that
they have absolutely no choice. They must
take that judge or this jury to which their
case is assigned.
Consider that very carefully and please
vote down this amendment.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Any further discussion?
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to speak in support of the Scanlan
amendment. This matter was debated to
some extent, as the members of the Com-
mittee of the Whole may recall, at the
time we considered the recommendation of
the Committee on the Judicial Branch.
At that time the minority report sug-
gested this amendment or addition to the
judicial article, "There shall be the right
of removal in each case before the Superior
Court and District Court in a manner de-
scribed by rule or by law." That amend-
ment was proposed as I recollect and re-
jected. We feel that the identical question
is now presented on the Scanlan amend-
ment.
As indicated by Judge Henderson, the
right in criminal cases is otherwise pro-
tected in the Constitution. The amendment
proposed by Delegate Johnson to the judi-
cial article did nothing more than to sug-
gest that the right be nothing more than
the right prescribed by law or by rule. That
will be perpetuated by law or by rule so
we feel there is no necessity to include it
in the Constitution.
|
