|
the constitution to reflect since we have
gone into so much other detail and indi-
cated to the legislature that as to the court
itself we are interested in specialties; that
a specialist would be wise, as for example
in a juvenile court and in other courts as
it becomes necessary.
Let us consider not just the over-all field
of law but every field of endeavor. Every
field of endeavor is breaking itself down
into specialties. The only field which con-
siders itself competent in every section is
that of the law.
What happens? In September of every
year in the City of Baltimore all of the
judges rotate. This means that a judge who
has spent a year developing himself in the
rules of the law court finds himself the
following year in the equity court. He be-
comes an expert in that field. He then finds
himself rotated to the criminal court.
This I suggest to you is a thing which
should go into the past in a major juris-
diction that handles tens of thousands of
cases a year.
I strongly suggest to you that this
would be a good way of seeing to it that
where a judge becomes very proficient in
a certain field that he will stay in that
field. I heard one comment when I men-
tioned this before to the effect that a judge
would become very tired within a certain
field. This happens in every field of en-
deavor where an engineer stays entirely in
the electrical field or a medical man stays
in one very small narrow field. But he be-
comes an expert and I think an expert on
a bench would not do any harm, but would
do much good.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
I think most of us come down to this Con-
vention with the desire not to write into
the constitution things which were unneces-
sary and which were self-evident. I re-
spectfully submit this is one of those pro-
visions.
I would assume that the language of the
proposed amendment would have implicit
in it that a judge could be assigned to a
functional division on a rotational basis as
well as a nonrotational basis. If that is
true, then I think implicit in the language
of the proposed section is what Delegate
Bennett suggests that we adopt implicitly.
|
I suggest for that reason that it is un-
necessary that we defeat the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any person de-
sire to speak in favor?
(There was no response.)
Is there any other discussion against?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will sound the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 10 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 10. A vote No is
a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 5 votes in favor and 106
against, the motion is lost. The amendment
is rejected.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 5.08?
(There was no response.)
If not, we will revert to section 5.01. I
ask the page to distribute the amendment
marked BE. Amendment No. 11. The Clerk
will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 11
to Committee Recommendation JB-1 by
Delegates Fox and Carson: On page 1,
section 5.01 Judicial Power in line 14
strike out the word "District" and insert
in lieu thereof the word "General"; and in
all other places where the term "District
Court" appears in Article V insert in lieu
thereof the term "General Court".
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment
having been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Fox to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee of the Whole,
I will not take but just a moment of your
time. I think this is a very simple proposi-
tion. I see no reason to have two courts in
the State of Maryland that have the same
name and widely divergent jurisdictions.
This is going to cause considerable con-
fusion in Maryland.
|
