|
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I am op-
posed to this amendment and I sincerely
hope it will be defeated. It provides that a
case can be removed as a matter of right,
and all that it allows the legislature or the
court to do is to fix the time within which
the trial can be held.
Now that opens all of the abuses, it seems
to me, which presently exist in this field,
namely, that people should only have a
right to removal upon a showing of cause
that they cannot have a fair and impartial
trial. This makes the removal mandatory
merely by filing of a piece of paper, and I
think it is open to all the objections that
have been pointed out in such detail at a
previous debate. I hope that this will be de-
feated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask Delegate Weidemeyer a
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weidemeyer
does not have the floor just now. Delegate
Macdonald, do you desire to speak in favor
of the amendment?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I do, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I must take
issue with our respected colleague, Delegate
Henderson. The abuses have been that these
suggestions for removal have been filed at
the last minute, and that they have been
used for purposes of delay. Amendment No.
25 corrects that situation completely.
Now this gives a right to removal, pro-
vided the party wanting the removal files
his request in time. The Court of Appeals
can provide how much time that must be
before trial.
The question really is, are you going to
leave the question of removal up to the
litigant, up to the parties involved, or are
you going to leave it up to the court, and I
suggest that this right should be in the
party. After all, it is his bowl of soup and
he should have the right to determine
whether he wants to be tried in this county
or another county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to oppose this amendment. This
amendment includes equity cases. Now, let
|
us consider an injunction case in which it
is frequently important to have an im-
mediate hearing, possibly for the purpose of
dissolving the injunction, possibly a ques-
tion of whether the injunction should be
continued. Speed of hearing is very impor-
tant. Now if you are going to subject this
type of proceeding to automatic right of
removal, certainly it would impair the effi-
cient and orderly administration of justice.
Then too you might have an ejectment case
in which it would be just as important to
view the land, to look at the boundaries on
%the ground as in a condemnation case and
there may be many others. This is a very,
very unfortunate provision. It will impede
the administration of justice and I ear-
nestly solicit your opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to adopt
this amendment. You will note it is a very
definite compromise of all positions hereto-
fore taken.
I point out for your very earnest con-
sideration the fact that our present Consti-
tution contains a right of removal in civil
cases.
I am confident that most lawyers will
agree that if you delete something, some-
thing of this nature from the constitution,
or, for that matter, when you delete any-
thing from the constitution, it takes on a
far gTeater meaning than if it had not been
placed in the constitution in the first place.
In other words, I submit to you that if we
eliminate this right of removal in civil
cases, it will be argued, and succinctly, I am
afraid, that this Constitutional Convention
has gone on record to delete the right of
removal in civil cases. I am certain that
each and every one of you does not want
to create a situation of that nature.
I should also like to point out to the pro-
ponents of deleting this subject matter in
the constitution the fact that by doing so
they may very well be precluding the Court
of Appeals by rule to operate in this man-
ner. If there is nothing in the constitution
giving the Court of Appeals by rule to act,
they may very well not have authority to
act.
I do not think that the proponents of
deleting this section want that, but they
may very well be stuck with that unfortu-
nate situation. This is a fair and reasonable
|
