|
there will be any part-time judge at the
superior level or at the district level, but
that those judges at either level who may
not be entirely occupied with the business
in the county where he may reside may be
assignable to a jurisdiction where the case-
load is greater.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: And therefore he
would not be part-time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: If you mean part-
time in occupation, no. A judge could be a
part-time judge in one political subdivision
and part-time in another.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the motion to re-
consider.
I think it may be significant, but those
who spoke in favor of the motion to recon-
sider are from Baltimore City, or the large
metropolitan counties. Most delegates do
not know, since they do not live in the
small counties the difficulties, the incon-
venience of obtaining justice. A lawyer or
litigant must go 10, 20, 70 miles and plus
that in a round trip, in order to see a
district court judge.
I submit that justice and even law en-
forcement will in some cases be delayed if
we do not have a district court judge re-
siding and holding court in each district. I
subscribe entirely to everything that Dele-
gate Adkins said in his well reasoned and
very persuasive address. I think the ques-
tion boils down to one of availability, and
ready justice. As far as cost is concerned,
I cannot see how it will cost much more
to have a district court judge residing in
the county, along with the commissioner,
and the necessary clerks over and above,
perhaps just a little more than the present
system where there are one or more magis-
trates or peoples courts and the clerks.
I submit, Mr. President, that we have al-
ready spent forty minutes on this motion
to reconsider. I suggest that the delegates
by an even more resounding vote than they
gave on Amendment No. 18, turn back this
amendment to reconsider the question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the motion
to reconsider?
Delegate Ulrich.
|
DELEGATE ULRICH: Mr. Chairman,
I have a question of Mr. Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Ulrich.
DELEGATE ULRICH: Delegate Mudd,
would it not be true that the district
judges will be sent to another district to
hear cases when they are not busy in their
own court, and by doing so, would not they
be trying cases for people that they did
not know, either? It seems to be the con-
sensus of some delegates that they want to
have a judge that knows their people, but
would not they be transferable, anyway?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: You are entirely
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President —
THE CHAIRMAN: I should have said in
favor of the motion to reconsider.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I am op-
posed to the motion to reconsider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone desire
to speak in favor of the motion to recon-
sider?
Delegate Bushong.
DELEGATE BUSHONG: I hate to take
exception to my good friend Senator Mal-
kus, but it seems to me that this Conven-
tion, having given every county in the
State a superior court judge, and knowing
something about the caseload in some of
these small counties, and now to give them
a district judge, seems to me to be going
just too far with judges, and the thing is
getting out of hand.
If these judges are needed, they can get
them ; but if they are not needed, why have
them?
I believe that the district court judge
can go into Garrett County twice a week
and any of these other small counties, and
do a good job for them; but on the other
hand, to have him sitting in Garrett
County every day in the week is somewhat
|
