|
a confused delegate: we spent many min-
utes listening to arguments, pro and con,
about Amendment No. 18, 4nd my question
is do you have any additiWal evidence in
support of the opposition to Amendment
No. 18 or, are we just asking for another
crack to knock it down?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I would like to
answer by saying that section 5.29 clearly
indicates that where a resident judge is
needed in any county, the Court of Ap-
peals by rule can always assign to sit tem-
porarily in any court a judge, whether he
be a superior court judge or another dis-
trict court judge.
I believe that that is an additional mat-
ter that is completely relevant here, and
may have been overlooked, and therefore
would be, I would say, something new.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Frederick.
DELEGATE FREDERICK: Would the
delegate answer me just one more ques-
tion? Did you know of section 5.29 during
the recent debate?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Yes, sir, I
did; but I am afraid that some of the other
delegates who voted in favor of Delegate
Malkus' motion may not have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Frederick.
DELEGATE FREDERICK: You feel
then that it was omitted and nobody
brought this problem before the body?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Yes, sir, I do
feel that it is quite important and relevant
to this question, particularly in the light
of the point raised by Delegate Adkins,
where the effort is to raise the status of
the judiciary and to make justice available
in every county.
I say here that with a superior court
judge resident in that county, who may be
assigned to the district court responsibili-
ties, if there is need for them, that that
answers the question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Frederick.
DELEGATE FREDERICK: Except just
one thing, Delegate Clagett.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you asking a
question?
DELEGATE FREDERICK: Yes.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you debating?
DELEGATE FREDERICK: Far be it
for me to get entangled. I feel like a lay-
man in a jungle with a sling shot.
Your reference very clearly brings about
the only thing that is also confusing me:
that Delegate Adkins spoke after you re-
considered, not before; so again I am con-
fused. You bring reference to Delegate Ad-
kins' speech, but that was after you made
the amendment to reconsider, not before.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the ques-
tion, Delegate Frederick?
DELEGATE FREDERICK: I am con-
fused. I would like to ask him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett,
you have slightly less than thirty seconds
to end the confusion.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I will have to
stand on the fact that I hope that your
confusion with more consideration will
clear, and that you will vote in the right
direction.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Fox rise?
DELEGATE FOX: I would like to ask
Delegate Mudd a question, if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Delegate Mudd, if
there were a district judge resident in
every county, and if there were not suffi-
cient judicial business to occupy him in the
county, could he not then be assigned to
other places in the State where it would be
necessary to have additional district judges?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, that is en-
tirely possible under the assignment pow-
ers provided for in section 5.29, as I
recollect.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: So there would not
be any reason to assume that these judges
would be part-time, then, would there?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: No, there is no
contemplation in our recommendation that
|
