N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 355
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes, not only on that, but any other material issues.
MR. KAPELSOHN: I will be very glad to do so. In fact, I was going to ask permission to do so anyway. Now, within what time is such memorandum to be submitted?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: I would like to have it within a few days, because we expect next week to go over our tentative draft.
MR. KAPELSOHN: Would next Monday be okeh?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes, Monday would be fine.
MR. KAPELSOHN: I will be very glad to do that, and if any member of your Committee has in mind some other kind of tough nut to crack, if you will let me know, we can probably express our views on that, too.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: You submit whatever additional material you think would be helpful, including the material requested.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kapelsohn.
We have a written brief from the A. F. of L., which sets forth its views.1 The text appears in the Appendix to these Committee Proceedings. I call it to your attention. I recall specifically that they recommend unification of the courts, the election of judges, and that the jurisdiction of the court be subject to law. That, I think, is an issue which we have not discussed, at least as distinguished from the present notion that it is fixed by the Constitution and not subject to law.
If we can get any further material from the A. F. of L. we will be glad to receive it, but in the meantime we do have their written brief.
MRS. MILLER: I shall follow through on that.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: We had invited Mr. Gaulkin last week when he indicated a desire to appear, but then we had to change the appointment because of our heavy calendar, and we have invited him for today.
We have had some discussion with respect to insurance cases, some of which has been confusing, and I understand that Mr. Gaulkin will, at least in part, discuss some of those problems. Mr. Edward Gaulkin.
MR. EDWARD GAULKIN: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Miller, and members of the Committee:
New Jersey lawyers generally seem to assume that the opinion of the bench and bar should decide whether or not Chancery shall be continued as a separate court. It is not surprising that lawyers should think so, but it is surprising and somewhat alarming that the public generally should seem to agree that it is largely up to the
Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book