|
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: Just a matter of
statistics, Mr. Chairman and fellow dele-
gates. The 1957 report of the Citizens Con-
ference on State Legislatures, "Impeach-
ment and Trial of Governors," says that
at the power of impeachment, 49 states
empowered the legislature to impeach the
governor. Of the 49, 47 required the house
to bring the impeachment, one required the
senate to bring impeachment, and one is
unicameral. The court of an impeachment.
Forty-six states require the senate to sit
as a court of impeachment; one requires
the state supreme court to sit as a court of
impeachment, and one requires that its
governor be tried by a special commission
of eminent jurors to be elected by the
senate.
The model constitution also recommends
the legislature trial.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I would prefer
Delegate Winslow's history to Delegate
Gill's statistics. The history of impeach-
ment in this country has been one pri-
marily of misuse. Where it has been used,
for the most part, it has been subject to
gross abuse for purely partisan advantages
and the trial of Andrew Johnson illus-
trates this. The trial of the five governors
in the reconstruction area illustrates it,
and in each one of those cases it was the
senate that was the guilty body. I suggest
that we strike out this provision as a few
other states have, and put the special tri-
bunal that will try impeachment cases in
an independent body, perhaps in our own
Court of Appeals. That would satisfy me.
But I think a special tribunal as proposed
by the constitution is sufficient.
Let us try something new where the old
has not worked whenever it has been
invoked.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
Does any delegate desire to speak in
opposition?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Impeachment
has been a pretty unsatisfactory method to
get rid of someone who holds public office.
It is for that reason that the State of
California pioneered the system for the
removal of judges which has been adopted
|
by several other states, including the State
of Maryland. It was because impeachment
was such a poor remedy, that the removal
process is gaining favor in many states,
and is being considered by the Congress of
the United States.
Picture, if you will, the typical impeach-
ment trial in the senate as it has occurred
on only a few occasions in the history of
the United States in the Senate of the
United States. There have been something
like eight or nine impeachment trials in
the Senate. They have lasted an average of
seventeen days, during which time they
have tied up the entire work of the Senate.
Statistics indicate at many times during a
trial before the Senate, as few as three
members of the Senate have been present
on the floor giving attention to the process
of the trial of a public officer whose re-
moval from office is at stake. It just is not
a satisfactory method.
I do not have any great love for the
method proposed by the Committee but I
think it is better than a trial by the Senate.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, there are two
parts of this proposal that bother me very
much: one is that if the Committee's pro-
vision is allowed to stand, then the very
same judges who might be involved in the
conviction of a man for impeachment might
then also be involved in his conviction for
criminal prosecution, and I think that this
is a very unsavory method of proceeding.
Secondly, I would point out that we have
built in a system in this constitution, a
judicial system where there is very little
review by the people, and if you add to
that taking away the right of the people, as
it exists in impeachment, by leaving it in
the General Assembly, then you are again
removing one more control by the people
and putting it into this locked judiciary. I
urge you not to do this, to leave the im-
peachment procedure as it has been in the
history of Maryland where it has done no
harm and where it has proceeded very
well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marvin
Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: May I sug-
gest to Delegate Miller that I do not know
what judges in her part of the State do,
but in my part of the State when a judge
has once heard a case, he does not sit on
that case again.
|
