|
I find no example where I would feel that
that would be true. However, Delegate
Case, I think that our mental telegraphic
system here is not working too well. Do
you have an amendment to suggest to the
amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: No, sir. I have no
amendment to suggest. I am trying to find
out what is behind your amendment and
I would like to ask you another question.
There are a number of matters of law
which are traditional, where you have no
right to elect a jury, such as the cases
tried on ancient writ quo warranto, for
example. Why have you not made exception
for them?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: To be perfectly
frank, I do not believe in those cases it
would be necessary as a practical matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Has the Court of
Appeals not held in a number of cases that,
in situations of which I am talking about,
cases of the ancient writs, there is no right
of removal, even though they are law cases?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: That is true.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther discussion on Amendment No. 25-A?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I would like to
oppose on two grounds. The first is the
one I stated yesterday, in advocating we
put in equity cases and that is a simple
thing. At one time equity was a removal
right in the 1867 Constitution. It was not
until 1922 that the Court of Appeals in a
rather tortuous line of reasoning took the
right of removal of equity cases out. We
have since had the right of removal only in
law cases. The basic objection, of course,
is the fact that when you go before a judge
and you do not think you are going to get
a fair trial, the only person Avho can decide
whether you are going to get a fair trial or
whether he should disqualify himself is
the judge. I suggest to you if you had to
ask him whether he was going to be fair
and disqualify himself, you would not have
had to ask him to disqualify himself in the
first place. The second objection, however,
I think, would assume that we would have
a judiciary which would in all cases be rea-
sonable and fair.
|
This is a fact, that there is growing in
this country a movement to combine law
and equity. This is a current federal pro-
cedure, and there may come a time when
we want to abolish the distinction between
law and equity, and I would hate to see
written into this constitution a provision
that certain parts of law could be removed,
whereas concomitant parts of equity could
not be removed and I could see a great
deal of trouble in cases which had an odd
mixture of law and equity under some new
procedures, some new state procedures
such as the procedure now existing in New
Jersey.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 25-A to Committee Recom-
mendation R&P-2, not printed but before
you. For that reason the Chair will repeat
what the amendment is.
To delete from lines 8 and 9 of the
amendment the phrase, "and all cases in
equity/' and to delete from line 16 the
phrase added by the modification "and
domestic relations". A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 25-A, that is, the
deletion of these two phrases. In either
event, Amendment No. 25, either in its
original form or as amended will be sub-
mitted to you for another vote. Vote now
on Amendment No. 25.
A vote Aye, is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 25-A. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 61 votes in the affirmative
and 55 in the negative, the motion carries.
The amendment to the amendment is
adopted.
The question now arises on the adoption
of Amendment No. 25, as amended to Com-
mittee Recommendation R&P-2.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 25 as amended. A vote No is a
vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
|
