|
man, let me preface my remarks first by
stating that although I am offering an
amendment to this section, I am very much
in favor of the Committee's report as a
whole. I think the Committee's report is
excellent. It will be a great improvement
in our judicial system and I too want to
compliment the Committee on a job well
done.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, to sec-
tion 5.08 would allow the General Assembly
to establish functional divisions of the su-
perior court, as well as the Court of Ap-
peals by rule.
In other words, it would make the power
concurrent.
I voted against the proposed amendment
of the minority of section 5.01, and I am
very happy that the four-tier court system
is being maintained and that that will be,
or those will be the courts exclusively. I
think it would be very bad if we had au-
thority in the General Assembly or any-
where else to create other courts outside
of this four-tier system.
If I may call the attention of the dele-
gates to section 5.07, section 5.07 does
grant to the General Assembly the au-
thority to prescribe the jurisdiction of the
superior court. It can by law under this
section add to the jurisdiction of the su-
perior court.
The authority under section 5.08 to estab-
lish functional divisions, I submit, is of the
same nature. Indeed, it is probably more
limited, but of the same nature.
I think the General Assembly should be
in the position to give the Court of Appeals
a nudge in this connection.
If I may call your attention to section
5.31, it would provide for concurrent rule-
making power.
The Court of Appeals can make rules
establishing procedure and governing the
administration of the courts, and the Gen-
eral Assembly would be able to do like-
wise.
We have had this concurrent rule-making
power here in Maryland now for some
years. To my knowledge, it has worked re-
markably well. On the few occasions where
there has been some sort of conflict, I un-
derstand that the General Assembly and
the Court of Appeals have worked it out
to everyone's mutual satisfaction.
So, Mr. Chairman, and member dele-
gates, I think in this matter of establishing
|
functional divisions of the superior court,
it is similar to granting jurisdiction to the
court, and I think that the General Assem-
bly should be in a position to give the
Court of Appeals a nudge, if that should
ever be necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention, I
rise again to oppose this amendment. If my
memory serves me correctly, this addition
to section 5.08, as well as the correspond-
ing addition to section 5.10, providing for
the functional division to be created by
rule was one of the ideas of our Commit-
tee that was adopted almost unanimously.
We gave careful consideration in this
area to the administrative responsibilities
of the court to work within the areas of
the jurisdiction prescribed by the legisla-
ture.
It seemed to us, as I recollect discussion
in the Committee, and the comments of my
very capable ladies and gentlemen of the
Committee, that it was almost the unani-
mous feeling of the Committee that in this
area of functional divisions the court and
not the legislature should have the au-
thority to create these divisions.
The functional division in our judgment
was the answer to the earlier criticism of
the Committee recommendation, that we
needed to give the legislature power to cre-
ate additional courts.
We fear, frankly, that the legislature,
not now perhaps, but sometime in the fore-
seeable future, unintentionally, may by
law create a functional division that be-
cause of its lack of knowledge of the de-
tails of the innermost functioning of the
courts in the various areas of the state,
could disrupt the harmony and efficiency
of the entire structure.
We feel that the amendment here pro-
posed opens the door to such a possibility,
if not a probability and we feel that our
Committee would have done less than a
complete job if it had not restricted this
very important power within the court
where we think it probably belongs if the
court is to be required, as we are insisting,
to administer justice in the State of Mary-
land for all the people to the best of its
ability.
Such a concurrent priority in the legis-
lature could, we respectfully suggest bring
about a situation where apparent lack of
|
