N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 340
(The session began at 10:00 A. M.)
The eighth meeting of the Committee on the Judiciary convened in the Rutgers University Gymnasium.
PRESENT: Brogan, Drenk, Jacobs, McMurray, Miller, G. W., Peterson, H. W., Smith, G. F., Sommer and Winne.
Vice-Chairman Jacobs presided at the request of Chairman Sommer.
VICE-CHAIRMAN NATHAN L. JACOBS: Will the meeting please come to order?
Mr. Kerney was invited two weeks ago, but he was away. I did not know he was back until I saw him here this morning, and I thought we would take this opportunity of hearing from him.
Mr. Kerney was a member of the commission which worked on the revision and submitted its report in 1942. He was the seventh member, so selected by the remaining members of the commission.
We have already heard from several members who participated in the 1942 draft. You will recall that we heard from the chairman of the commission, and also from the Attorney-General, both of whom were lawyers. Now we will hear from a member who is not a lawyer, although he has been associated with lawyers so long that he will probably talk like one. Mr. Kerney.
MR. JAMES KERNEY, JR.: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Miller and members of the Committee: I doubt very much whether I will talk like a lawyer. I rather hope not.
MR. THOMAS J. BROGAN: Now, isn't that terrible!
MR. KERNEY: I would like to make some comments - purely from a lay viewpoint - which tend to support the principles contained in the report of the Commission on Revision in 1942. I appreciate the fact that there is a great deal of argument as to the retention or abolition of the Court of Chancery, and from the lay viewpoint, and without any attempt to be technical - which I couldn't be anyway - I cannot see any reason why we cannot have an integrated court system, such as was proposed in 1942. We can retain the equity principles of the Chancery Court without neces-
Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book