|
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Gleason to speak in favor of
the amendment for three minutes.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chair-
man, fellow delegates, let me say at the
outset thr.t I am sure all of the delegates to
this Convention believe in recommending
for the people of Maryland a strong ju-
diciary; they believe secondly in recom-
mending to the people a strong executive;
and thirdly, they believe in recommending
a strong legislative branch of the govern-
ment. The principle involved is that the
powers of government should be balanced
so that each branch of government can
carry out effectively its own responsibili-
ties. However, there is another principle
that I think has been traditional in the
annals of government in the United States.
That principle is that the power of each
branch of government should also have
some restraints and some checks and I
think that it is in this respect that the
majority report falls down when it removes
from the power of the legislature at some
time in the future, when conditions war-
rant, the ability to recommend and to put
into effect additional courts.
I think throughout the entire recommen-
dation of the majority report the strength-
ening of the judiciary has taken effect in
all of its aspects, with respect to appoint-
ment, removal, and conduct in office, but I
do think that we ought not take away from
the legislative branch the ability to adjust
itself to conditions that might occur some-
time in the future, which the powers of the
judiciary in establishing a division within
a court, a tier of court would not adjust
itself to, so, therefore, I urge that in this
respect and on this amendment alone we
give back to the legislature the power to
adjust itself to situations that might occur
sometime in the future.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to yield three minutes to Dele-
gate Henderson to speak in opposition to
the amendment.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, fellow delegates, as Chairman Mudd
has pointed out, it seems to me that this
amendment would cut the heart out of the
basic concept of the unified judicial system.
It would open the door to the creation of
miscellaneous courts throughout the whole
judicial structure.
I suggest that this is quite unnecessary.
The proposal of the majority in the ma-
|
jority report recommends you leave com-
pletely to the legislature the creation of
such administrative courts, the Appeals
Tax Court, the zoning boards, the Work-
men's Compensation Commission, and the
many other administrative courts. It would
still be within the power of the legislature
to create courts in that order. It would not
and should not be left to the legislature to
create courts within the unified four-tire
judicial structure. That is a matter of in-
ternal housekeeping, which I suggest
should be left to the courts.
Let us take just one example; for ex-
ample, it has been suggested that the legis-
lature might, or some people might advo-
cate or want creation of a domestic rela-
tions court. That is a court which would be
a composite, I take it, of certain functions
which are now assigned to the superior
court level. It would probably effect some-
thing of a merger, perhaps, or a coordi-
nated effort between the equity courts
which are handling divorce cases and the
juvenile courts, which are handling chil-
dren, but the problem is an administrative
one, I suggest. It is a question of coordinat-
ing existing facilities and providing new
ones to deal with this with the aid of ex-
pert professional advice, depending- not so
much on the personality of the judge, but
on the professional staff which attacks
these problems on a coordinated basis.
Now the legislature under this amend-
ment is left perfectly free to create new
courts of action, but I suggest they should
not be allowed to create separate courts;
that that is a matter which should be left
strictly to the judiciary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I yield three
minutes to Delegate Kahl.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kahl is
recognized to speak in favor of the amend-
ment.
DELEGATE KAHL: I can certainly see
the necessity of reforming our state's ju-
dicial system by adopting a unified and uni-
form system, thus eliminating the confu-
sion of having variations of lower courts
from one area to another. However, the
Committee's recommendation gives us an
exclusive unified system, which vests ju-
dicial power in a four-tier system, fellow
delegates; this word "exclusively", as pro-
vided in the Committee's recommendation,
has me quite troubled.
We are writing a document which we
intend to last at least as long as our 1867
|
