|
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Just as there
are often times when it is difficult to tell
whether something is purely a question of
law or a question of fact, I suggest that
the matter that many of us are concerned
with in this amendment is neither purely
a question of substance nor purely a ques-
tion of housekeeping. It partakes of both,
and it has significant elements of substance
in it.
I suggest that it is more than a matter
of housekeeping as to whether or not there
will be a small claims court. It is a matter
of the people's needs, not simply the best
utilization of judicial manpower.
I suggest that it ought to be up to the
legislature to be able to decide that even if
it means inefficient use of judicial man-
power. If there is a need for the people in
a given area for a small claims part of the
superior court or a district court, the legis-
lature ought to have at least a little bit of
a safey valve to be able to require it.
I suggest that the same situation obtains
at times with regard to judges who are
specialized in certain areas of the law.
Sometimes it may be simply a question of
the most expeditious disposition of cases;
sometimes as in many family law areas or
other technical matter it may have to do
with the entire philosophy of the way cases
in that area are disposed of.
I suggest that it ought to be within the
power of the legislature to be able to say
to the appropriate court, we feel that it is
important as a substantive matter that
there be separate judges to handle family
type cases.
For this reason, in order to permit this
safety valve to be available, I would vote
for the amendment..
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: A point of in-
quiry. I would like to ask the Chairman
whether this would permit the maintenance
of the separate court system by law, if
this amendment is adopted, in Baltimore
City. In other words, would the adoption
of this amendment simply provide a means
by which you could perpetuate the division
of courts in Baltimore City?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, will
you respond to the question?
|
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Delegate
James.
It was our thought from the beginning
that this functional division would be the
means by which the present division at the
court of limited jurisdiction in Baltimore
City could be perpetuated, namely by the
municipal court and peoples court. Like-
wise, perhaps the juvenile court as it now
exists in Montgomery County would be an-
other case.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it Delegate
James was referring more particularly to
the six courts constituting the supreme
bench. Is this correct, Delegate James?
DELEGATE JAMES: That is correct.
DELEGATE MUDD: I see no difficulty
in carrying it through at the superior court
level in the same regard, depending upon
the volume and extent of the business.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, do
you rise to speak in opposition or in favor?
DELEGATE CASE: I rise to ask the
Chairman to yield for a question, if he will.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, will
you yield for a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Mudd,
this sentence was added to the Commission
draft.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
DELEGATE CASE: If the sentence
were eliminated, would that be equivalent
to the amendment that is now being pro-
posed?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I think ex-
actly. If what the Committee added was
eliminated and the section was identical
with what the draft constitution recom-
mended, I think it would be the same.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I would like to
ask a question, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of whom?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Judge Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment,
first?
|
