|
tutional amendment, the municipal court
and the peoples court, that the General As-
sembly gave each of those courts by con-
stitutional amendment the very thing we
are talking about here to do by rule. In the
municipal court by rule they have several
functional divisions, the traffic court, the
housing court, and the general criminal
court. In the peoples court of Baltimore
City they also have by rule, which has been
created, incidentally, by the court, several
functional divisions. They have their rent
court, a tort court, and a contract court,
and any other matters relating to property.
Now, I can conceive that this is a sug-
gestion, and I must add, the entire Com-
mittee agreed on this — we had very little
dissent, if any, on this particular point —
that functional divisions are things which
are solely within the administrative power
of the court, and for that reason, I would
oppose the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate White rise?
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. President, I
wish to address a question to the Chairman,
Delegate Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me find out if
anyone desires to speak in favor first.
Does anyone wish to speak in favor of
the amendment?
(There was no response.)
If not, Delegate Mudd, do you yield to
a question from Delegate White?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: This question
arose out of recent experience in Baltimore
City. It does not particularly deal in the
area of whether it is functional or not, but
it possibly addresses itself to the question
of the sharing of a particular right of
power with the legislature.
As the result of an incident in Balti-
more, I had a discussion with the chief
judge of the municipal court, and he indi-
cated to me that when a judge walks
through the door and takes his seat, he is
autonomous, and I am a bit concerned as
to whether this is an effort to retain this
autonomous right of the judiciary, or a
move toward sharing it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Of course, it is
necessary that a judge be able to act effec-
|
tively in the area of his jurisdiction, Dele-
gate White, and if your question is some-
what along the line of that of Delegate
Bushong, I would say if it is overly exer-
cised or not properly administered then
the redress would be removal or retirement
under another section of this article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: In that section
do we deal with the question of taking ac-
tion where a judge has acted improperly?
THE CHAIRMAN: In a later section.
DELEGATE MUDD: I suggest you read
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 6. to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 6. A vote No, is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 81 votes in the affirmative
and 52 in the negative, the motion carries.
The amendment is adopted.
There are three other amendments to this
section. A question could arise as to
whether by reason of the action on the
successive amendments that one action
made on consideration of another amend-
ment improper. Following the procedure
last week, I will call up the amendments in
order which I think will give you an op-
portunity to consider all of them.
Will the page please distribute the
amendment marked AO, Delegate Bam-
berger? This will be Amendment 7. The
Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 7
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, by
Delegate Bamberger: On page 3 section
5.08 Composition of Superior Court in lines
11 and 12 strike out the sentence reading
"There shall be at least one Superior Court
judge resident in each county."
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
|
