|
The idea of judicial revision would seem
unnecessary within the flexibility and lati-
tude allowed by functional divisions and
the power of the legislature to prescribe
jurisdiction.
The recommended four-tier structure,
with the possibility of the legislature in-
creasing the number of judges in the inter-
vening Court of Appeals obviously con-
templates that the appellate jurisdiction
and possibly the original jurisdiction of
that court might be expanded as the cir-
cumstances require.
Our recommendation does fix the number
of the judges in the highest court at seven
as it is now and contemplates that the pur-
pose of that court will be appellate only.
We did after considerable consideration
decide, as I indicated previously, to retain
the name of Court of Appeals. In some
measure that was motivated by sentiment,
to a greater extent I think it was motivated
by the desire of the Committee and lawyers
and judges of Maryland to retain the fine
history and tradition of that court. It has
enjoyed an enviable reputation throughout
the country, and to perpetuate that reputa-
tion and allow the State to enjoy the tre-
mendous prestige from prior decisions in
the work of that court can best be pre-
served in the majority view of the com-
mittee by retaining the name Court of Ap-
peals as the name for the highest court for
the State of Maryland.
We did with some reluctance abandon
the name of circuit courts but improvement
required that it be abandoned in place of
superior or trial courts because under the
concept recommended by your Committee,
circuit courts or trial court is actually a
misnomer.
Again may I ask you to make full use
of the rather comprehensive memorandum
we have filed in support of our recommen-
dation. We feel there are facts and sup-
porting data there to convince you, we hope,
of the wisdom of the Committee's Recom-
mendation having to do with court struc-
ture.
We feel that the suggestion of the Com-
mittee in its recommendation for this four-
tier system and the corresponding obliga-
tion of the State to take over full financial
burden for the administration of justice is
an improvement and a necessary one in
order to provide the uniformity and facili-
ties that the administration of justice re-
quires in a great State like Maryland.
As some of you may know, the situation
|
as to financial responsibility under the pres-
ent system is somewhat chaotic. There are
jurisdictions, so our Committee was told,
where the problem today in not being able
to keep up with the case load is not lack
of manpower but lack of facilities. If the
political subdivision is financially unable
or is for some reason unwilling to provide
necessary facilities to allow proper admin-
istration of justice, then the legislature in
its wisdom in providing additional judges
of course cannot do the full job and, there-
fore, it seems imperative that the State
recognize as its full and complete financial
responsibility the matter of the proper ad-
ministration of justice in this State.
Also, I should say that the Committee
had before it several delegate proposals
suggesting specialty courts, or courts other
than those created in the four-tier system
recommended by the Committee.
We would like to assure you that we are
not unsympathetic with the need for spe-
cialty courts perhaps at some jurisdiction
at the moment and perhaps to a greater
extent in the foreseeable future. We feel,
however, that the allowance for functional
division should be entirely adequate and
sufficiently flexible within rule-making
power of the Court of Appeals to provide
the facility and the manpower necessary
to accommodate the needs of any particular
jurisdiction in the master of a specialty
court. Suggestions brought before the Com-
mittee were for tax court, court of claims,
housing court, family court, and specialty
courts of such jurisdiction.
Obviously there is at the moment in some |
limited areas a need to accommodate the
specialties in those areas. However, as a
mandate in the constitution, provision for
those courts needed only in certain areas,
perhaps only temporarily, would in the
view of the majority be an unnecessary
constitutional provision. We are confident
that the wide latitude allowed in the mat-
ter of creating functional divisions can ac-
commodate the need for such specialty
courts.
In the matter of the district courts, there
was considerable discussion in our Com-
mittee and testimony to support the need
for a district court in every county. Our
Committee was requested by several per-
suasive witnesses to make provision in the
contitution for a district court in every
county. On the contrary, there was testi-
mony equally as persuasive that in some
areas of the State the apparent need did
not exist for a district court in every
county. We have adopted the provisions of
|
