|
Section 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 — that
concludes consideration of the schedule of
transitional provisions. Division has been
called for. Schedule of transitional provi-
sions is divided from the schedule of leg-
islation.
The question now arises on the adoption
of Committee Recommendation GP-13 to
the extent that it encompasses the schedule
of transitional provisions comprising the
first fourteen pages.
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I conferred
very early in the day with Mr. Benson
about the Orphans' Court. While you were
out of the room this morning I asked the
question of Delegate Hardwicke as to just
what was going to happen to the powers
and duties of the Orphans' Court, and the
answer was that it was going to be hang-
ing in limbo until the General Assembly
got to it. I thought it was our clear under-
standing that its powers were going to go
to the superior court, and for that reason
I thought the amendment was prepared by
now.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be an
amendment to the schedule of legislation
rather than to the schedule of transitional
provisions, would it not?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: No, sir. I
want to make it clear I am not talking
about the personnel. I am talking about
duties and powers.
Could you hold this open for a minute
and I will go check down the hall?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but let me un-
derstand something before you leave, Dele-
gate Rybczynski. In the schedule of transi-
tional provision, on page 5, I assume you
are referring to section 15 which provides
that the judicial power vested in the Or-
phans' Court as of June 30, 1968, shall
continue until January 1, 1971.
I take it that your question was directed
to the problem of what disposition should
be made of the jurisdiction conferred now
upon the Orphans' Court effective after
January, 1971.
Delegate Rybczynski: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a
matter of legislation under the new judicial
article. Since there would no longer be an
Orphans' Court, the question of jurisdic-
tion being vested in the district court
would be a matter of legislation. It is not
|
in this schedule on the theory that the
legislature has ample time between now
and 1971 to decide where to vest that
jurisdiction.
My fear and the fear of many of the
delegates to whom I have spoken is that
there might be some idea of putting all of
this in the district court, and we would
dread having something like this happen,
but we still could not control it.
Under the sections adopted with respect
to the judicial branch, the jurisdiction of
the respective courts is to be determined by
the General Assembly.
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Please, sir,
there is a section which provides that all
of the duties now in the Supreme Bench
of Baltimore City, Court of Common Pleas,
and the city courts will go —
THE CHAIRMAN: That is in the leg-
islation.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Then you
have not seen the ones on legislation.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will look now and
see. I do not have an amendment sponsored
by you with respect to the schedule of
legislation.
Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman,
I ask that section 30 be held over until the
amendment that we are working on can
be presented.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The ques-
tion is further divided so as to separate
section 30 of the schedule of transitional
provisions from consideration with the re-
mainder of that schedule.
Delegate Fornos, I have not seen the
amendment. I am assuming in the light of
your request that the amendment will not
effect the divisibility of the section. The
amendment does not touch upon any other
section of the transitional provisions.
DELEGATE FORNOS: No, sir, it does
not.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is di-
vided so that the question now arises on
the adoption of the schedule of transitional
provisions including the introductory para-
graph on page 1, but not including sec-
tion 30.
Is there any further discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
|
