|
of justice. Now, when we get to the lowest
level of justice, as it appears from this
article, we have decided we have to restrict
the Court of Appeals and not grant it the
power to do at the low level that which we
freely gave it at the high level.
I suggest under circumstances such as
these that not only is the quality of mercy
somewhat strained, but the quality of jus-
tice will also be strained.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President, I have had to oppose my good
friend the Chairman so many times today;
this time I stand with him.
The only argument I have heard for this
amendment is flexibility. I have heard that
time and time again. Back in 1924, some
of you are too young to remember that,
but I remember it, they had the big hurri-
cane in Florida. A lot of houses were
blown off the foundations because they
were flexible, they did not peg them down.
If you are going to have commissioners
and you have ideas of what their duties
are, I say peg those duties down, do not
leave them up in the air, get rid of this
flexibility. If we are going to have a four-
tier system of courts, which seems to be
the objective, let us have a four-tier sys-
tem and not make it so flexible we wind
up with a five-tier system.
I would say, Mr. President and members
of the Convention, we should give this
amendment a rousing rejection.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE GRANT: I will make my
remarks very brief. The lower courts last
year or the year ending July 1966 handled
900,000 cases. The circuit courts handled
approximately 64,000 cases. If you want
to do a little arithmetic, there are approxi-
mately 70 judges at the circuit court level,
about a thousand cases apiece. Unless you
contemplate installation of 900 new judges,
district court judges at $30,000 a year,
which comes out to a total of $27 million,
you had better give the lower courts some
flexibility, you had better allow them to
allow their commissioners to do something.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: I see this amend-
ment which could possibly make a five-tier
court and by rule have the commissioners
|
ruling and trying cases which the distri
court could not. Jurisdiction has been (
tablished by law for the district court a
for superior court. But by ruling, anythi:
could happen and these commissioners cov
have jurisdiction over any matter that t
court assigned which the federal constit
tion would not prohibit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other de
gate desire to speak in favor of the amer
ment?
Does any delegate desire to speak in c
position?
(There was no response.)
Ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
Delegate Anderson.
DELEGATE ANDERSON: I just WE
to express my opposition to this amei
ment. I have been listening here for so
time about the authority these comm
sioners would have. To start with, tl
are not going to be lawyers and if a seai
warrant, for instance, becomes necesss
I think it would be the duty of the lov
court to get out of bed and issue the w;
rant if it were that important.
Imagine a layman issuing a search w
rant to search somebody's house in "
middle of the night. It would not nee
sarily have to be at night, and ordinal
the court would be available to issue
warrant itself.
I think it would be horrible to h;
people untrained in law, not lawyers,
suing search warrants to search your pr
erty or mine with or without cause as
might determine; it is a complicated p
cedure. I was state's attorney for a Ic
period of time, and I know what that
quires. Unfortunately, some of the up
echelons of the judiciary are not too
miliar with it.
I think it would be an infringement
the personal security of your homes to p
mit by rule-making power, not by 1;
somebody to issue such a thing as that.
There is no comparison between that {
a warrant. A warrant is something soi
body gets on sworn testimony. Imm<
ately he knows what he is swearing
but a search warrant is to go looking
a crime maybe in the middle of the ni
on a warrant issued by someone untrai
in law.
|
