clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3306   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

3306 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Jan. 5]

of Judge Henderson be added to the spon-
sors of these two amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN: The name of Dele-
gate Henderson is added as cosponsor on
Amendment No. 13 and Amendment No. 14.

Delegate Fornos.

DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, I have the privilege
of presenting two amendments to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary Sections of the
Transitional Provisions and on the Tran-
sitional Leg-islation. I would like to ac-
knowledge the very hard work of Dele-
gates Gilchrist, Gill, Lord, John Smith,
Marvin Smith, and Delegate Willoner in
making these amendments possible as well
as the Committee Counsel, Bill Adkins.

The best way to describe what we aim
to do, if the delegates would turn to page
21 of the transitional legislation section
and if we could strike out tentatively what
would be eliminated: On page 21 we would
propose to strike out all of line 47 through
50; on page 22, all of page 22; on page 23,
all of page 23; on page 24 we propose to
strike out subparagraph 2, lines 1 through
15, and subparagraph 3, lines 44 through
50.

On page 25, we would propose to strike
out all of section 23 starting at line 13
through 44.

There was one oversight in the drafting
of Amendment 14, and I would like to have
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that on
line 39 on page 24 the date "July 1" be
changed to 'January 1, 1968."

THE CHAIRMAN: This is not an
amendment to the amendment but an ad-
ditional amendment to the section.

DELEGATE FORNOS: It was an over-
sight.

THE CHAIRMAN: But the reference is
not to the printed amendment.

DELEGATE FORNOS: This is to bring
it in compliance with line 13.

THE CHAIRMAN: You misunderstood
me. Your modification is not of the printed
amendment?

DELEGATE FORNOS: That is correct.
It is another part of the first amendment.
We have to add it to Amendment No. 14.

THE CHAIRMAN: What line of page
24?

DELEGATE FORNOS: 39.

THE CHAIRMAN: What do you want
to do?

DELEGATE FORNOS: Put the word
"January" in place of "July."

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to modification of Amendment No. 14
by adding in line 20 of the amendment
after the semicolon the following and in
line 39 change "July" to "January"?

If there is no objection, the modification
is made.

DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, what we hope to
achieve by these two amendments can best
be outlined for you if we take and as I
explain our objectives and also study
Amendment No. 13 which implements our
objective. By striking section 21 of the
schedule of transitional legislation, we are
substituting transitional provisions in sec-
tion 30 as follows: That the present salary
of the judges of the Court of Appeals can
in no way be decreased and will be main-
tained as the minimum on the imple-
mentation of the new uniform judicial
salaries system, that the present salaries
of the Court of Appeals will remain as
they are and will be maintained as the
minimum in the new transitional pro-
visions. That under the Circuit Courts,
now the superior courts, the superior court
justices would be paid equally to what the
highest circuit court, or the Supreme Court
justice in this case, and this would be
$30,500.

We completely eliminated any reference
to the salaries of the district court. The
logic behind this is that the district court
does not become implemented until 1970
and having established a uniform judicial
salaries system for the three higher courts
of the State, we felt that we did not go
into the area of legislation and legislate
and leave it to the General Assembly to
provide in this area.

Furthermore, we have taken into con-
sideration that there may be some sub-
divisions of the State which under existing
laws might supplement judicial salaries in
an effort to gain higher salaries as a re-
sult of this new Constitution. And to
circumvent any such possibility, we have
added a sentence to section 30; on Amend-
ment No. 13 it is listed as subparagraph
(e) which says, "In establishing a uni-
form scale of judicial salaries and pensions,
including those for the district court, the
General Assembly may disregard any local
supplementation or local salary or pension



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3306   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives