|
THE CHAIRMAN: The Court of Ap-
peals judge on the new basis. I am not
sure. This was true.
Delegate Hardwicke, do you know?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It is not
true on the new basis.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Rather than
equalizing the salaries, are we not really
raising the salaries of the Court of Ap-
peals, and also the Court of Intermediate
Appeals, and also the circuit court?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Yes. You
are raising them to the level of the high-
est paid judge in that tier in the present
system.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: To the question
whether there was a present Court of Ap-
peals judge in that tier that was making
$35,000, your answer was negative?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think
that was your question. Your question
was: was there any judge receiving more
than a Court of Appeals judge's salary,
and the answer to that was no.
DELEGATE FORNOS: My next ques-
tion was whether any Court of Appeals
judge is presently receiving $35,000 a
year.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: We took
the figures that are in the Legislative
Council bill. The rationale is that we are
basing it approximately on the highest ju-
dicial salary. In some cases we have gone
somewhat over the highest to preserve a
differential. We felt there should be a
significant salary between the Court of
Appeals judge and the judge in the Inter-
mediate Court. I am not sure what you
mean ; do you want to frame your ques-
tion again, Delegate Fornos?
DELEGATE FORNOS: I am question-
ing whether it is necessary for us to in-
crease, as part of the package of the Con-
stitutional Convention, the judicial sal-
aries, or whether we should not just ad-
here to the two principles that have been
spelled out in the judiciary article (a)
that they should be uniform and (b) that
there shall be no supplementation, and
then leave it to the legislature to imple-
ment it in view of the fact that they have
the legislative authority to do so.
That was my question.
|
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Well,
Delegate Fornos, I can only repeat the an-
swer that I gave you originally, and that
is that we are afraid that two factors to-
gether, that the counties, by inflating the
salaries on a local basis, coupled with the
fact that you cannot increase that salary
during the term of office, could compel us
when the new constitution goes into effect,
to have the State pick up an artificially high
salary across the line.
We do not intend that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Could we not
state that in one paragraph rather than
setting figures for what is indeed a salary
increase for the whole judiciary?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I suppose
you could, but it seems to me that this is
a sensible and clear way to express it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Do you know
what the cost of the judiciary program is
going to be under this new system?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Including
all four tiers, and assuming that the dis-
trict court judges pick up approximately
the same workload as your magistrates,
and so forth, you are talking about a total
figure beginning at about 1971 of around
$837,000 in total—
THE CHAIRMAN : I think we will have
to suspend for a few moments to let the
photographer take his pictures.
Will all delegates please take their
seats? Will all other persons please leave
the chamber?
For what purpose does Delegate White
rise?
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I
have a point of inquiry and a point of
personal privilege.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the personal
privilege.
DELEGATE WHITE: The personal
privilege, Mr. Chairman, is this: I would
like to announce that fifty-four years ago
an attempt was being made in the Post
Office to force Negroes out of the service,
and in an effort to survive an organization
came into existence which was known as
the National Alliance of Postal and Fed-
eral Employees, the latter name, "Fed-
eral", was included several years ago.
|
