|
Now, if you leave these words in, "as
prescribed by rule" then you are not com-
plying with the intent of 5.31, and that is
to give concurrent power; and you are
vesting it wholly in the court, rather than
giving the concurrent rule-making power
to both the court and the legislature.
I would think that if we take it out and
the court rules on it, then we are operating
under the rule. If the court operates with-
out that and makes the rule, and the legis-
lature finds it inadequate or erroneous, or
thinks it ought to be changed to benefit the
people, they will be free to do it. However,
if you leave the words in, "as prescribed
by rule," then that rule-making power is
exclusively in the court, and forever re-
moved from the people.
I think the amendment is a very good
amendment, and I am heartily in favor of
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Mr.
Chairman, fellow delegates: we are facing
here a challenge to the judicial system that
we as delegates have the opportunity to
present to the people of Maryland. We all
know that the business of the court is in-
creasing, not arithmetically but geometric-
ally. If the court is to perform the func-
tions that we expect of it in the future,
the court must be able to handle its own
business. If the court should act corruptly,
the legislature has the right of impeach-
ment. We must have confidence in our
courts, and the only way to dispense justice
to the people of Maryland is to allow the
court to run its own business for that pur-
pose.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Bard to speak in favor of
the amendment.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to speak in favor of the amend-
ment.
First, I have long felt that a prescription
of rule fundamentally involves the pro-
cedural step. Thus as I see it, this par-
ticular step is a substantive matter. The
nature of panels is substantive, as I would
see it, and is inherentlv tied in with the
whole nature of what is discussed here.
Second, I do not believe we ought to set
each last step in this debate in terms of
what is happening to the courts. I for one
|
believe that the steps that we are taking
are highly important, but this particular
item, as I see it, is one where we ought to
have concurrent powers; and because it is
substantive, I believe that they both ought
to share in this concurrent responsibility.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Carson to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment.
DELEGATE CARSON: I do not rise in
opposition. I would like to ask a question,
if it is pertinent now, of Chairman Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: If persons desire to
speak, I would have to give them prefer-
ence. I will come back to you.
Delegate Key, do you desire to speak in
opposition?
DELEGATE KEY: I would like to ask
Delegate Bamberger a question, if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone desire
to speak in opposition?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger,
do you yield to a question from Delegate
Key?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Key.
DELEGATE KEY: Delegate Bamberger,
not having the advantage of being a lawyer,
I do not have such intimate knowledge of
the courts, and I just wonder if perhaps
the words, "as prescribed by law" in 5.06
do not really give the legislature the upper
hand, because they are the ones who have
to delegate the judges that are requested
by the court, and therefore would examine
the use of the judges and could say if they
are being adequately used.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: As I un-
derstand section 5.06, and if I misstate I
hope Chairman Mudd will respond, the
words "as prescribed by law" in sections
37 and 38 relate only to the number of the
judges who are members of that court, but
not to the numbers of judges who would
sit at any one time in a panel to hear an
individual case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger,
I am not sure that you understand Delegate
Key's question, or at least the Chair under-
stood it. If I could state it, I think she was
agreeing with your interpretation of the
first sentence by saying that inasmuch as
|
