|
Now, Mr. Chairman, a very interesting
phrase was used here this morning: ad-
ministrative courts.
I think it hits very well to the very heart
of this entire situation. I suggest to you,
Mr. Chairman, that what we will do is
cause subterfuge in the future.
There is already concern on the matter
of who will be sitting in juvenile court.
Is this a concern? Certainly so. Not one
person in this room would want to have
his 13 or 14-year old son tried by the same
judge who just recently got through a
murder case, or who just recently got
through a bad robbery case.
Specialties must exist within our system,
or it will be self-defeating.
We know about a tax court at this time,
operated by specialists. We know about an
administrative court called Workmen's
Compensation Commission, which handles
specialties.
As the vote population increases, it will
be necessary for us to consider worrying
about who is going to try both cases. There
will be more airplanes and more helicopters.
Who will be handling those cases?
If you do not have some advance infor-
mation in these fields you must do a great
deal of study before each case. This is fine
as long as the docket is not crowded, but
as the population grows, and these cases
grow, it will be impossible for a judge to
take out two or three or four days to study
in advance about the specialties.
We must leave room within this system
for specialties.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski, you have a little less than half a min-
ute.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I am going
to suggest to Chairman Mudd that if he in
fact prevails on this question, he must give
some consideration to placing in another
section of this same article the words "non-
rotating," so that there will be judges avail-
able within specialties who are specialists.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that
this is an excellent amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Clagett?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment be-
|
cause I am persuaded by the argument of
the majority, both through its Chairman
and Delegate Henderson and others.
I wish to draw a very simple parallel,
and ask that this be considered carefully,
particularly by those who are not lawyers,
but who have expressed concern about the
concentration of the judicial power in the
judiciary, free of legislative tampering by
use of the word "exclusively."
Assume for the moment that your busi-
ness is an insurance business, and it is an
incorporated business, with the officers and
usual board of directors.
Is it not logical, and is it not the best
method of procedure, to permit those offi-
cers or that board of directors to deter-
mine the necessity of an additional assist-
ant in the activity of that business?
For example, you want to expand and
take on another line of insurance, assuming
for the moment that it is home owners
liability or fire or some other specialized
type of insurance activity.
Is it not the best way of approaching
that need for the officers and the board of
directors to determine that this additional
desk shall be added, and the additional
secretary to assist that particular assistant,
rather than permitting the stockholders of
the corporation to make such a decision?
Would the stockholders not be more sus-
ceptible to outside influences, rather than
aware of the orderly operation and man-
agement and function of the internal af-
fairs of the particular business? And
should not those officers be the ones to de-
termine whether or not that additional
desk and the accompanying secretarial as-
sistant, et cetera, be added.
It seems to me that logic persuades us
that the answer is certainly in the affirma-
tive, and by using that simple parallel, I
think you can appreciate what is being at-
tempted to be done by the majority report.
Therefore, I would urge you to vote
against this amendment, which would cer-
tainly disrupt orderly business procedure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I want to remind the members of the legis-
lature that several years ago, when the
Court of Appeals was on its knees and
begging for the help of a court of special
appeals, we had a long and lengthy debate,
|
