N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 452

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Morning session)

with all the jurisdiction which now reposes in the same judge under the various titles under which he functions.

That, I think, sums up the views of our committee as to what the new Constitution should contain.

In conclusion, let me say that I think it is the opinion of our bar that most of the difficulties with our system are purely procedural. If the courts, the appellate courts, do not meet frequently enough to meet some objectors' views, that could easily be changed by the court itself; it fixes its own calendar. If prerogative writs need simplification, and I most certainly feel that they do, we need no constitutional revision to accomplish that. By and large, our system is basically too good to tamper with. I know I voice the views of these men who come here today from our Association, when I say that we have no personal interest in this; we'll manage under any system, whether it be as good as this or not, to get along somehow, but I feel that no one would be candid if he did not try to impress upon this Committee what he no doubt already realizes - the terrific importance of the problem and function which you have to perform. I think if you abolish the Court of Chancery you will do a great wrong. You will do a distinct disservice to the administration of justice in New Jersey. It matters little that that wrong may rise to haunt you in this Committee, but it matters a great deal that the lives and the fortunes of millions of people who come now and in the future to our courts for the administration of justice may find that that justice is administered in an inferior manner, compared to the manner in which it is administered today. That is why we feel, as I said, that caution is the watchword, that you should make those changes which are necessary, but not change simply for the sake of changing, and that above all you should retain the Court of Chancery in its present status. Thank you for your time.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Any questions?

MR. HENRY W. PETERSON: I would like to ask Judge Kremer this: I may be wrong - I am a layman, and I may misinterpret what he said - but if I evaluate what you said, and I subscribe to specialization as far as preserving as much of the good as can be preserved, but if I get you right, then the people in the other 47 states are not getting justice, are they?

MR. KREMER: Well, I don't have the privilege of knowing your name.

MR. PETERSON: Peterson.

MR. KREMER: Mr. Peterson, may I say to you that in the correspondence which I received there is considerable comment to the effect - and this is by the lawyers, and after all I couldn't take your time to read all these letters into the record - that they feel that the abandonment of the separate Court of Chancery in their states has been injurious to the administration of justice. They would

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