|
mented, Mr. Chairman, in the .presentation
of this, there was no intention on the part
of the Committee to interfere with the
present facilites that are operating under
the circuit system. Our recommendation
does create one superior court. However,
obviously that superior court will have to
function in the political subdivisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it that the
answer to your question then is not that
there be a separate superior court in each
county, but that the superior court will
sit in each county, is that correct?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer
your question, Delegate Kiefer?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Scanlan rise?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I wish to
speak against Amendment No. 9.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The events of
the last forty minutes furnish a small ex-
ample of why perhaps Shakespeare was
justified in his words to Henry V when he
said "The first thing we do is kill all the
lawyers."
(Applause.)
I was quite surprised when the Chairman
of the Committee, who waged a magnificent
fight for a unified judicial system and held
firm on many motions yielded so readily to
what seemed an innocuous motion but one,
I suggest, can do no good, is unnecessary
and, worse, indicates that he really did not
mean it all the time.
It is perfectly clear what the intention
of the Committee was on these various
matters that there be a resident judge in
each county. It is also perfectly clear that
judges of the superior court can be assigned
throughout the State as case loads change.
We should leave it to legislative history
rather than trying to write every word of
caution into this constitution.
For that reason I again oppose Amend-
ment No. 9 and Amendment No. 8 and any
further elaboration of section 5.08 on this
point. It seems perfectly clear, if not in
text, certainly in the abundant legislative
history and intention demonstrated on the
floor, and certainly in response to Mr.
Johnson's comments and Mr. Kiefer's ques-
tion.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of Amendment No.
9?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Whereas I
agree with much of what Delegate Scanlan
said, I do not want to join him in that
common resting place to which he is con-
fining us all. Therefore, I would want to
at least accomplish the purpose for which
Amendment No. 8 was originally filed and
now Amendment No. 9 is before you, that
is to insure that there be individuals of
the superior court in each of the counties.
I feel certain that on the basis of the dis-
cussion now, forty-two minutes, that the
Style and Drafting Committee clearly have
before them what we wish to accomplish
and can accomplish exactly and specifically.
I, therefore, ask you to vote in favor of
Amendment No. 9.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to
Amendment No. 9?
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: I would like to ask
Delegate Clagett a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Clag-
ett yield to a question.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: A while ago you
said you felt there ought to be a division
of the superior court in each county. Are
there divisions that are geographical in
nature or are not the divisions functional
in nature?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I would agree
with the Chairman of the Committee, Dele-
gate Mudd, that the word "division" be
stricken if it causes any confusion. I mean
for there to be a superior court in each of
the 24 counties, and that includes at least
one, Delegate Mason, for Baltimore City.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
let me, if I may, try to make one thing
clear because it relates to the difference in
terminology between section 5.08 as pre-
sented and section 5.10 where the language
of sitting regularly is used and recom-
mended by your Committee.
|
