N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 446

STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Morning session)

(The session began at 10:00 A. M.)

The Committee on the Judiciary met in Room 202, Rutgers University Gymnasium.

PRESENT: Brogan, Dixon, Drenk, Jacobs, McGrath, 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: I would like to make this announcement for the benefit of the persons who are appearing before us today. The bar associations had been invited early. Invitations, I think, were sent during our first sessions to all the bar associations. Many have appeared during the early days; some were unable to appear until this late date. In the meantime, the Committee has prepared a Tentative Article which is being distributed and which all the bar associations, including those represented today, will receive probably by tomorrow, and certainly no later than Saturday. In addition to the remarks that you make today, we would like to receive your comments on the Tentative Article.

Is Judge Kremer here?

MR. WARD KREMER: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee: My name is Ward Kremer, Asbury Park, New Jersey, and I appear in behalf of the Monmouth County Bar Association.

On July 11, the Monmouth County Bar Association adopted a resolution in favor of the retention of the Court of Chancery as it now stands, and the president of that organization appointed a committee to appear here today in support of the views of the Association as a whole. That committee has designed me as its spokesman to present those views. I shall endeavor in the time that is allotted to me to give our reasons why we think there should be a separate and independent Court of Chancery in the new Judiciary Article, and so far as possible to meet some of the arguments and criticisms which have been leveled at the existing court and the arguments in favor of the change and abolition of the court.

I think that the dominant idea in the minds of those who favor


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