|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have heard a
great deal of discussion about the right of
removal being abused where the case origi-
nates. One of the advantages of practicing
in a remote place, is that you get a lot of
transfer cases. Just listen to the local coun-
sel tell the reasons they have for trans-
ferring cases will make your hair stand on
end. Section 8 gives you the right of re-
moval in equity cases. We have had the
right of removal in criminal cases. If you
needed to get a fair judge you had to have
the judge say himself that he was unfair.
I submit to you if you could expect him to
make that decision fairly you would not
have had to ask for the removal.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen, I rise in support
of the amendment. By taking out section 8
you do not destroy the right of removal.
All you do is leave it up to the General
Assembly and the Court of Appeals by rule
as they shall operate to define this area.
This has been in the past a most misused
procedure. It has not in the past consti-
tutionally applied to equity cases. I think
it very clear that our legislature and our
Court of Appeals can certainly handle this
area and do it well and wisely as time goes
by. But to write into the Constitution an
absolute where an absolute is most unwise
seems to me very lamentable, especially in
the larger counties. This right has been
so much abused in the past that it should
not be in the constitution but left to better
sources to be flexible and to be well done.
I urge your support of this amendment.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Committee,
I urge that the amendment be rejected.
For a long time it has been historic that
our people who had to go into court on a
law case knew they had the constitutional
right to remove it from a court in an area
where they felt they could not have a fair
and impartial trial. If it is any kind of
right that we do not want to abandon,
then we ought not to leave it up to the
legislature or the rule of court.
The only objection I have heard to it is
that some have abused it. Granting that
some have abused it, a lot of others have
|
used it correctly in order to obtain justice
and we ought to protect the rights of all
of our litigants in civil cases.
I agree with Delegate Grant that I think
it was an inequity before and we should
make it applicable in equity cases.
What do you do hear complaints of is that
they go in and request removal at the last
minute after the witnesses are ready. I
have had it happen to me, but I have also
had to remove cases where I felt I could
not have a fair or impartial trial either
by a prejudiced jury or by the court him-
self. Sometimes the judge sitting high and
mighty rapping the gavel can make a lot
of prejudicial remarks. In equity he has
the full sway of it.
We can leave this in the constitution and
we can take care of it. One little simple
amendment would cure all of their objec-
tions and if we took out the word "pend-
ing" in line 19 and added "filed within a
reasonable time prior to the date set for
trial and provided by law" with this the
legislature can regulate how many days
prior to the date set for trial that the re-
quest for removal can be filed. I think that
will cure all the objections. Therefore I
think that this vital constitutional right
of all civil litigants should be protected in
the constitution as it has been for so many
years past.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Any further discussion?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Parliamen-
tary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If this amend-
ment is passed, will other amendments to
this section be in order?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair understands that this is a proper
procedure. There is a variation, not to this
same section, but a substitute can be made.
It could just be a new paragraph. It would
not necessarily have to be a substitute.
There would not be a substitute but a new
paragraph on the same subject could be
offered.
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to speak in favor of this amend-
ment, and again I think I must point out
that I think we are playing a lawyer's
game.
First, the removal of section 8 from the
Constitution will not, I repeat, will not
take away from anybody the right to have
|
