|
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. May
the Chair inquire of Delegate Grant whether
the purpose of his inquiry of Delegate Cha-
bot was to agree to the substitution of
Amendment 9 for Amendment 8 if the
change were made?
DELEGATE GRANT: It was and it is
agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates Clagett
and Henderson agree to the substitution?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I will agree.
THE CHAIRMAN: This being the case,
the question before you is now Amendment
No. 9, it having been substituted for
Amendment No. 8 by agreement. The Chair
recognizes Delegate Schneider to speak in
opposition to the amendment.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chair-
man, we in Committee discussed use of the
word "regularly" and we decided, as I re-
member, that the word "regularly" does
not necessarily mean full time. The inten-
tion of the Committee was that there should
be a full time superior court in each
county.
To say there should be one judge sitting
regularly in the county could mean the
judge from Allegany County would go reg-
ularly once a week to Garrett County and
sit rather than that there should be a full-
time judge in Garrett County. What we
have with these two amendments which
have now been combined is nothing but
confusion. I think perhaps if we want to
keep it clear we had better stick with the
original recommendation of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position? Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to direct a question, if I may,
to one of the proponents, Delegate Grant.
THE CHAIRMAN: I want to find if
someone desires to speak in opposition first.
Delegate Marion, do you desire to speak
in opposition.
DELEGATE MARION: It seems clear
to me the intention of the Committee in
requiring at least one superior court judge
to reside in each county was to have essen-
tially the situation which we have now
|
where there is a judge of the circuit court
or in Baltimore City, certainly a supreme
bench who resides and who holds court in
that county. I think to put in language of
this sort would first of all be unnecessary
because it seems clear to me by the as-
signment power, that this will be taken
care of.
I am also concerned that it might be
restrictive and create some inflexibility in
the assignment of judges which the Com-
mittee wanted to prescribe in a more gen-
erous fashion throughout the State to meet
the judicial business of the State wherever
necessary- It is important to be able to
assign judges without having to worry
about language like whether the judge you
want to assign, if you assign him, will not
thereby be sitting regularly in the county
in which he is resident.
I see problems with this and would urge
the Convention to defeat the motion and
leave the language as the Committee rec-
ommended it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Grant
yield to a question of Delegate Byrnes?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Delegate Grant,
I share Delegate Marion's concern just ex-
pressed. I wonder if it is your direct inten-
tion to prohibit a particular judge from
being moved around the State. If I may
add, Mr. Chairman, if it is not your inten-
tion, I do not understand the purpose of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: The intention is
simply to have first of all a superior court
in each county, and secondly a resident
judge in each county whom you may as-
sume normally will sit in the superior court
in that county. However, there is no inten-
tion to preclude any superior court judge
from being assigned to sit in any county
as the court may desire.
This is the value of Delegate Chabot's
language, "a" superior court judge, instead
of saying "the" superior court judge.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Sy-
bert desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
DELEGATE SYBERT: Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me that Amendment No. 8 more
nearly arrives at the end that the pro-
posers of the amendment seem to be press-
ing for.
|
