|
the people in the final analysis could be
heard. Therefore, Mr. President and mem-
bers of the Convention, I think this is a
wise amendment and should be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Dulany?
DELEGATE DULANY: Mr. Chairman,
in answer to the point raised a while ago
that there was no control on the power of
the courts in this area, I think we have
forgotten for a moment that the legisla-
ture actually sets the jurisdiction of all
these courts. The legislature can amend or
withdraw the jurisdiction of one court or
the other, and when we are speaking of
functional divisions, what we are speaking
of are perhaps a probate division or a
criminal division or maybe a juvenile divi-
sion. We are not speaking of the adminis-
trative agencies or courts like the Public
Service Commission, Workmen's Compen-
sation, or even the Tax Court.
I think in all these areas the legislature
will still reserve power, and has the power
in any statutory court. In the administra-
tion of the district court or the superior
court, and in various divisions in the coun-
ties that have a lot of judicial activity, the
court should retain jurisdiction to set its
own policy on setting up separate divisions
and I would oppose the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Johnson to speak to the
amendment.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to speak to the amendment in
this way: I deem it necessary and impor-
tant by way of explanation to Delegate
Macdonald because I feel that in all proba-
bility this motion had something to do with
the question that he asked me when I was
giving the minority report.
It is my recollection that I introduced
an amendment to section 5.08 that said,
functional divisions of the superior court
may be established in any county as pre-
scribed by rule or by law.
I did this in Committee and I know what
happened. Immediately after that another
motion was made to amend, to delete, by
law, and I believe the amendment to the
amendment carried by something like 10
to 8, and then the entire section was
adopted.
We did not make this a matter for the
minority report because the minority feels
|
and believes that in all probability the
court will create functional divisions where
they are needed. However, since every
witness, every member of the judiciary,
every member of the legislature and every
member of the Rules Committee who ap-
peared before our Committee urged that we
retain concurrent jurisdiction, I do not
think that it is harmful, and it may even
be helpful, provided that this may be ac-
complished by rule or by law.
I believe that the courts will do it by
rule. However, since we are writing a
document for many, many years to come,
hopefully, perhaps there will come a time
when the courts will not be quite attuned
to the needs of the various divisions, par-
ticularly the Court of Appeals. Perhaps
they will not fully appreciate or under-
stand the need for a functional division in
some far-off county. For that reason, and
for the reasons that I have indicated when
questioned by Delegate Macdonald, I will
support his amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition? Dele-
gate Marvin Smith?
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman,
if there is some need in a far-off county,
it is not going to have a voice in the Gen-
eral Assembly anymore, that is for certain.
Mr. Chairman, I am reminded on this of
the situation that happened in Baltimore
City about 30 years ago.
I started out when I was in law school
in the office of the Baltimore Criminal
Justice Commission and I can recall very
well walking in with Mr. Wallace Reed,
into southern police station, and one of the
people there saying, "Wally, why in the
world did they create these second lieuten-
ants, for, what used to be desk sergeants,"
and Mr. Reed saying, "Well, now, all I can
tell you is that the General Assembly in
its wisdom saw fit to do it."
Now, Mr. Chairman, what we are here
talking about is functional divisions. We
are not talking about the jurisdiction of the
court. We are not talking about the creation
of new courts. We are talking about how
the court can best handle its own business,
and I submit to you, sir, that the judiciary
of the State is going to be much better
qualified to know just what its problems
are in the matter of judicial administra-
tion. That is all we are talking about, in
the matter of judicial administration.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
|
