|
Methodist Church. I said there was just as
much in the Methodist Church as among
lawyers.
DELEGATE MUDD: I stand corrected.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a fur-
ther question?
DELEGATE MALKUS: I presume, Mr.
President, I will have an opportunity to
ask questions later?
THE CHAIRMAN: You certainly will
have plenty of opportunity to speak. Do
you have any further questions now?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Not until Mon-
day, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dorsey.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Will the Chair-
man yield for a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may ask any
question.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Are not sections
5.13 through 5.25 in sum and substance the
Niles Plan?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I think so.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Has that not
been submitted to the General Assembly of
Maryland?
DELEGATE MUDD: It may have.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Has it not twice
been rejected by the people of Maryland
through their duly-elected representatives
in the Maryland legislature?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dorsey,
the Chair feels obliged to call to your at-
tention and to the attention of the assem-
bly that the last time the so-called Niles
Plan was submitted to the General Assem-
bly, it was referred by the General Assem-
bly to the Convention. It has been referred
to this Convention by the General Assem-
bly.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Prior to that,
did the General Assembly not reject it?
DELEGATE MUDD: The only legisla-
tive history I am aware of, Delegate Dor-
sey, is that at the 1966 session, I think,
part of the plan was passed or adopted
by the House of Delegates, then went to
the Senate, and from the Senate was re-
ferred to our Judicial Branch Committee
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Are you not
now proposing to write into the Constitu-
|
tion of Maryland what has been rejected
by the General Assembly?
DELEGATE MUDD: No, I do not know
that this has been rejected.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dorsey.
DELEGATE MUDD: I may not be up
on my legislative history, but I have no
knowledge that this plan has been rejected
by the legislature.
DELEGATE DORSEY: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, in section 5.13 you use the term "resi-
dence at the time of his appointment." I
was wondering if by that you mean that
the judge of the superior court has to be a
resident for some period of time prior to
his appointment. If you did mean that, why
did you not use a particular period of time?
DELEGATE MUDD: Which part of sec-
tion 5.13. line 2 or line 18? We say a per-
son shall have been a citizen of the State
and member of the bar for at least five
years immediately prior to his nomination.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: On line 26,
"to be eligible for nomination and appoint-
ment as a judge of superior court, a per-
son shall be resident of the county where
the superior court vacancy exists." What
do you mean by that?
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean as be-
tween resident and citizen and domicile?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think so,
Delegate Mudd. The question you may have
lost before was whether you meant resident
only at the moment of appointment or for
some time prior to appointment. Is that
the question?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Essentially.
DELEGATE MUDD: At the moment of
appointment.
DELEGATE WILLONER: At the mo-
ment of appointment. Is it contemplated
that lawyers from other parts of the State
would be eligible for superior court judge-
ships anywhere in the state?
DELEGATE MUDD: If they were resi-
dent at the time of appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: In other
words, all the lawyers of the State will be
|
