|
I assume the intention was to provide
that there should be at least one superior
court judge resident in the county and that
he ordinarily should preside in that court.
I think if you insert the word "ordinarily"
in the Grant Amendment No. 8, that would
do several things. It would provide that
while the resident judge ordinarily, usually,
would preside in that court, he would not
be precluded from being moved elsewhere
as the demands in other counties dictated.
It would also not preclude a judge of the
superior court from any place in the State
being brought in.
I take it that Delegate Grant has already
withdrawn his amendment, or agreed that
Amendment No. 9 takes its place. If that
is true, I would like to re-offer Amend-
ment No. 8 with myself and any others who
might want to join as sponsors. Again the
change would be simply inserting one word
in Amendment No. 8 at line 3, after the
words "who shall" before the word "pre-
side" the word "ordinarily" so that it
would read, "who shall ordinarily preside
over the Superior Court in that county".
That would have the effect, as I say, of
seeing to it that the judge who lived in the
county would ordinarily preside in the
superior court of that county, but would
not preclude him from being moved else-
where, if his time were not fully occupied,
to some place where it was needed. I may
be wrong but Amendment No. 9 would
seem to preclude the shifting of judges
from one superior court to another.
I, therefore, would like to re-offer Amend-
ment No. 8 with the word "ordinarily" in-
serted after the words "who shall" and
before the word "preside" in line 4.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you mean you are
offering that now as a substitute for the
substitute, I think I have to rule you out
of order, Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I think that is
what the parliamentary effect would be.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the
motion is in order at this time. For what
purpose does Delegate Weidemeyer rise?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I rose
to say I would like to join Delegate Sybert
and ask Delegate Chabot if he would with-
draw his Amendment No. 9 so we could
take No. 8 as Delegate Sybert suggested
and proceed to get this matter settled.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I respectfully
|
suggest that we will get it settled if we
vote on 9 as it has been accepted by the
people who had originally offered 8.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Johnson rise?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
for the purpose of making an observation
hopefully for clarification.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: We become in-
volved in this particular hassle which un-
derstandably is important because in ques-
tioning, one of our delegates spotted the
fact it is just possible that a county could
be left without a superior court inasmuch
as it is not spelled out.
However, Chairman Mudd clearly indi-
cated that it is the intention of the Com-
mittee that there shall be at least one su-
perior court in each county and at least
one superior court resident judge in each
county.
I strongly urge that we leave this r^a'ter
to the Committee on Style to straighten
out. It can be easily corrected by saying
something like there shall be one Superior
Court in one county and at least one resi-
dent superior court judge in each county
or something to that effect and I urge the
makers of the various motions and amend-
ments to withdraw that and leave this
matter for Style. The record is clear and
the intent will be carried out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot has
indicated he does not desire to do that. For
what purpose does Delegate Kiefer rise?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President,
along the lines of Delegate Johnson. I
would like to ask Delegate Mudd if this is
a correct interpretation, that there is to be
one superior court located in each county
and one superior court judge resident in
each county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: That was our in-
tention, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure the
Chair understands because the purpose of
the amendment is that there be only one
superior court; the purpose of the recom-
mendation as the Chair understands it is
there is to be only one Superior Court in
the entire State. Therefore, I did not un-
derstand either the question or the answer.
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: As I think I com-
|
