N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 183


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Wednesday, July 2, 1947 (Morning session)

JUDGE BRENNAN: You want me to get out of here?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: No, stay as long as you wish -

MR. BROGAN: But not in that chair.

(Laughter)

JUDGE BRENNAN: I will listen for a while.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Judge, and I think I speak for all the members here when I say we greatly appreciate your being here this morning.

JUDGE BRENNAN: Thank you.

MRS. MILLER: I have a clipping here which maybe some of the lay people would like to have, about the Judicial Council of New Jersey.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: All right. This is a report of the Judicial Council itself. I think it is available in the New Jersey Law Journal and we will see that each member gets a copy.

We have invited Dean Harris of Rutgers Law School - incidentally,the Dean has this year celebrated his 25th teaching year at the school. You may recall the school was originally the New Jersey Law School. It is a great pleasure to receive our Dean and I am sure he will be of great help to us.

MR. GEORGE S. HARRIS: Well, everything has been said that can be said on the subject, I think. And if it hasn't been said, it has been written.

I want to state in the beginning that I assume you have all read Alfred Clapp's articles in the New Jersey Law Journal.1 These editorials, here referred to as articles, appear in the Appendix to these Committee Proceedings. I think he did a beautiful job and an objective job in getting at the pros and cons of this matter. I assume, too, that you are familiar with the Journal of the American Judicature Society, that has worked pretty steadily for a number of years on better constitutions.

Now, I don't want to take much of your time; my opinion carries no weight. What I want to get down to are some specific matters.

I assume everybody agrees we shall have an independent high court and, therefore, there is nothing to talk about, with the possible exception of how many shall constitute the court. Most of us believe that there should be seven, largely due to the fact that the Chief Justice will have a very heavy burden of administrative duties, and if the volume of business remains about the same as it ought to remain under the set-up adopting the English procedure, with modification, it will not be possible to do the job with less.

Now, you come to the two critical matters - one, the integrated court; and, two, whether or not there shall be an appellate court intermediate between the trial court and the court of last resort.

I listened to Judge Brennan and I agree with him that there


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