|
favor of Amendment No. 7. A vote No is
a vote against.
Cast your vote.
(Whereupon, d roll call rote wax taken.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has every delegate
now voted? Does any delegate desire to
change his vote?
(TJicre wax no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote?
There being 11 votes in the affirmative
and 115 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Pages will please distribute the amend-
ment marked AS. Please mark this Amend-
ment No. 8. While waiting for that to be
distributed, the Chair would like to in-
quire of Delegate Chabot whether the
Chair was correct in assuming his pro-
posed amendment was directed to the same
point as Amendment No. 8?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir, except
that Amendment No. 8 would require that
the judge who is the resident be the one
who sits.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that.
There is a difference but directed to the
same point.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: At the appropriate
time, I will recognize you and suggest you
offer yours as a substitute. The Clerk will
read Amendment No. 8.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 8
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, by
Delegates Grant, Clagett, and Henderson :
on page 3 section 5.08 Composition of Su-
perior Court line 12 after the word
"county" insert the following: "who shall
preside over a division of the Superior
Court in that county".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment
having been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Grant, the sponsor, to speak to
the amendment.
DELEGATE GRANT: There is not a
great deal to be said about this. It is
mainly a housekeeping item to indicate, in
the words of Chairman Mudd when he
talked about exclusively to have in the con-
|
stitution what we mean to have in the con-
stitution.
This would prevent the unlikely circum-
stance brought up by Delegate Clagett yes-
terday that once court might be set up in
the entire state in Annapolis whose juris-
diction would extend over the entire state,
that all judges and litigants would have
to come to Annapolis to attend this court.
The critical thing brought up in the dis-
cussion of the last amendment is simply to
keep justice close to the people. I would
hope the Committee of the Whole would ac-
cept this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you desire to speak in opposition to this
amendment?
DELEGATE MUDD: No, Mr. Chairman,
unless some members of my Committee de-
sire to speak in opposition, it is the dispo-
sition of me personally, if Delegate Grant
would accept one suggestion, to concur in
this amendment, if he would delete in line 4
"a division of". We have some reluctance
to use the word "division" in this connec-
tion because it might be confused with a
functional division.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant,
would you accept the suggested modifica-
tion of the amendment?
DELEGATE GRANT: I would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would your seconder
accept?
(The seconder accepted.)
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Hargrove arise?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: I would like
to ask Delegate Grant a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second.
Amendment No. 8 is modified by the mover
and the seconder to eliminate the words "a
division of" in line 4. Strike out the words
"a division of" so that it reads "who shall
preside over the Superior Court in that
county."
Delegate Hargrove, Delegate Grant, do
you yield to a question from Delegate
Hargrove?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hargrove.
May I break in a moment. I realize it is
annoying to say the least to have me re-
peat the name before you use the micro-
|
