N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 136

Tuesday, July 1, 1947 (Afternoon session)

leave the Supreme Court Justices on the Court of Appeals?

CHIEF JUSTICE CASE: Yes, I think so, for compulsory retirement. That is what I was leading up to. That would assure, if you had that limitation, that it wouldn't be too long a time before your number was reduced.

MR. THOMAS J. BROGAN: Well, Chief Justice, then if a man wanted to retire at 70, you would say that would be all right, but he should not be permitted to serve after 75?

CHIEF JUSTICE CASE: I think so. Now, as to the retirement at 70, it is true that most men have some vitality left at that age, and a good deal of vitality, too, particularly in occupations of this sort. Then it would seem, if a man has devoted most of his life and done it to the satisfaction of the State, he should have a little time to enjoy his life before he's laid away in his two by six.

MR. McGRATH: Wouldn't it be sensible to allow them voluntary retirement at 65?

CHIEF JUSTICE CASE: Perhaps so, provided the judge has put in enough years. I think if you get under 70, you should have a certain required number of years of service. Then, too, there is the present provision - which I think is an excellent one, very seldom taken advantage of, but mighty comforting to a judge - that if he becomes afflicted with a disabling illness which arose after his appointment to the court, he may be retired on pension short of that time. Most lawyers who go on the bench do make some sacrifices. A man can work a great deal better, and I believe longer, if he knows that in the event of an emergency for which he is not responsible, he isn't dealt a devastating blow.

While we are on that subject, I would like to call your attention to something on that point. It was contained in - I have here what I am talking about - it is marked "First Special Session - 1945 - Concurrent Resolution No. (blank), State of New Jersey, Introduced by Mr. (Blank)." I think it was never introduced. It came to my hands a few days ago, I think from the Chancellor. I believe it is a Resolution that was prepared to carry out the majority report of a special constitutional committee appointed after the Constitution of 1944 was defeated at the polls. You may remember that after that Constitution was defeated at the polls, the Legislature passed a Joint Resolution calling for the appointment of a committee to study particularly the judicial section, as to whether or not something could be framed that would go through. The need for something was urgently felt. Three Senators and three Assemblymen acted, and I think there were six lawyers and judges appointed by Governor Edge, and they met through the Spring season and didn't come to a unanimous result. But there was a majority report and this, I think, was the paper that was prepared in compliance with

Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book