|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Delegate
Chabot, have you given any consideration
perhaps to changing the amendment in
such a way that the smaller counties could
have the two appointees recommended,
while in the larger counties it could be no
less than three? In other words, by a popu-
lation basis, because in Baltimore City,
Prince George's and Montgomery you are
limiting them with the other counties when
you limit them to two. I may say, my same
question would be addressed to Delegate
Adkins hoping we would find that perhaps
as the solution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I have found it
difficult to see what sort of specific dividing
line could be written into the constitution
on this point. I do not know just how to
handle the problem in the manner that
Delegate Sherbow suggests, and as I said,
I would hope that the nominating commis-
sions can be expected in general to perform
their work in a responsible manner rather
than merely the minimal manner.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole: We have no serious objection
to what is attempted to be accomplished
here. Delegate Adkins has already pointed
out the problem we were trying to allow
for in the Committee when we made the
minimum number two.
It was to accommodate those political
subdivisions where they had only a limited
number of lawyers, as has already been
eloquently explained to this convention by
Delegate Grant from Garrett County.
Today I think Delegate Boyer gave us the
number of active members of the bar in
his county. Our Committee felt there was
some practical difficulty or could be a prac-
tical difficulty in this nominating commis-
sion coming up with more than two names
in some of these less populated areas. We
did anticipate that in the areas where the
membership of the bar would allow it that
the list would not be limited to two but
would probably be closer to five than to
two. We see no problem with Delegate
Chabot's amendment, in line with the mat-
ter we were trying to accomplish in the
Committee. We do feel, however, that there
|
is a practical problem involved if the
amendment proposed by Delegate Adkins
is adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor? The Chair
recognizes Delegate Adkins to speak in
opposition to the substitute.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I should like to
ask preliminarily if the Chairman of the
Committee would yield to a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Gladly.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Am I correct in
interpreting the word "eligible" to mean
eligible in the opinion of the commission
to serve as a judge to fill the vacancy then
pending?
DELEGATE MUDD: Say that again.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Am I correct in
interpreting the word "eligible" to mean
eligible in the opinion of the commission
to serve as a judge qualified to serve in the
vacancy then pending?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Would it, there-
fore, not be constitutional for the commis-
sion in the small counties which you con-
cern yourself with to recommend two men
and report to the governor that those were
the only persons they found within the
jurisdiction to be eligible?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I assume such a
report could be made.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: If that were a
constitutional method, would that not solve
the amendment and still not encumber the
constitution with a rather involved substi-
tute amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: My offhand opin-
ion is no. If the commission were required
to report not less than three, it seems to
me that the governor, when receiving a re-
port of not less than three, might return
to this and say it did not comply with the
constitutional requirement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I suggest again
that the language does not require them to
|
