|
has to do with why you were reluctant to
extend the jurisdiction of the commis-
sioners and specifically spell out their
function and responsibility in the consti-
tutional language of your sections.
DELEGATE MUDD: The compelling
reason as I recall was to limit the func-
tions of these non-lawyer officers of the
court within the areas as restricted and
thereby improve the administration of
justice.
To bring up the matter of search war-
rants, we thought that they should be han-
dled at judge level rather than lay level.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: As a practical
matter, does that not mean that the dis-
trict judge is going to be routed out of bed
at midnight in order to have a search war-
rant issued to make a raid upon a still in
some section of the lower portion of the
Southern Maryland counties? (Laughter)
DELEGATE MUDD: I assume you are
speaking of the lower portion of Prince
George's, but it is possible. (Laughter)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer, did you have a question?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent and Chairman Mudd, I am concerned
about the concentration of too much power
in the judiciary. I think this a democratic
form of government and of course there
should be checks and balances in each divi-
sion of the government as well.
I think that while it is a laudable aim
to eliminate political influence from the ju-
diciary, a number of efforts have been tried
and I have not seen too much elimination
of political influence from the judiciary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell,
do you have a question?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Yes, sir, I
preface it with that. Therefore, I am con-
cerned about the concentration of so much
appointing power in the judiciary because
I think that that opens the door to more
political activity by the judiciary.
For example, it seems to me to improve —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell,
do you not think you could state your ques-
tion now?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
|
Would it not be better to have the commis-
sioners qualified by the state civil service
system and appointed on merit rather than
having them appointed by the judges?
Then I would like to ask why you elimi-
nated in section 5.30 —
THE CHAIRMAN: Section 5.30 is not
open to question at this time. Questions
are limited to 5.02 to 5.11.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you answer the
first question, Delegate Mudd?
DELEGATE MUDD: I think your point
is well taken, Delegate Mitchell, but it was
the considered view of a majority of the
Committee that if we mandate in the con-
stitution administrative responsibility of
this system to the judges, then we must
give them the appointive power to provide
those commissioners who in the judgment
of the judge would be best equipped to per-
form an administrative function for the
courts.
There is a lot to be said for checks and
balances, but there is not very much prac-
ticality about giving me a job to do and
then say you can only do it with someone
appointed by the legislature. That was the
thinking of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: But, sir, on
the other hand, if they come through the
merit system, I believe all would be quali-
fied. Then we would have the possibility of
entrenched political activity in the ju-
diciary lessened.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your ques-
tion?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Would you
not think so? (Laughter)
DELEGATE MUDD: No, I do not think
so, because the rule would not foreclose
that possibility.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Delegate
Mudd, section 5.02 fixes both the appellate
and original jurisdiction of the court of
appeals or fixes the appellate jurisdiction
by law, the original jurisdiction by consti-
tution. Section 5.05 says that both the ap-
pellate and original jurisdiction of inter-
mediate appellate court can be fixed by law.
My question is why you prohibited the
possibility of the legislature conferring
|
