N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 475

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Afternoon session)

tent to think a man would expect a certain person to act for and in his behalf and yet have those men appointed by another agency. We didn't think that was the way it should work out and we considered that in view of that set-up, the proper way would be to have the Chancellor appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but all subordinate officers in the court be appointed by the Chancellor to do his bidding.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Does that answer the question?

MR. SOMMER: Yes, and it is not a question of the conscience of the Chancellor in place of the conscience of the King because you have the consciences of the Vice-Chancellors involved, since no opinion for some years has come down from the Chancellor.

MR. REINERS: Well, in substance, when a Vice-Chancellor decides a case, he advises the decree and the decree legally, as I can see it, is the decree of the Chancellor, although it is not the decree that the Chancellor has actually made, but that's merely because of the volume of litigation before the court.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Oftentimes it may not be the Chancellor's opinion. He may disagree with it.

MR. REINERS: In theory, it is the Chancellor's.


MR. REINERS: I'm not in a position to speculate on that. Now, gentlemen, I think it would be very interesting if you heard from Judge Madden, who has taken part in all our deliberations and who has very definite ideas, particularly on the question of the appellate procedure. His views are a minority view, joined in by Mr. Riggins, but which was not adopted. But I do think that it might be helpful to the Committee.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Judge Madden.

JUDGE THOMAS MADDEN: I would like it distinctly understood I'm not trying to supersede or throw any weight around, because there are certainly much more eminent federal judges and state judges in the district than myself. But I have two very definite ideas that I thought were worth relating.

The first is in relation to the appellate work. I feel that fundamentally you are writing here, or partly writing here, the revision of the Constitution which has lasted for a hundred years, and that it will take a considerable number of years before the decisions are solidified, you might say, as to exactly what road in the State we are travelling under the new Constitution. Now, our committee discussed whether we should have one appellate court or two levels of appellate court. It was my thought that there should be two levels of appellate court. I trust that this will be taken in the right light. The more I see of my own work as a judge, the more I think that litigants are entitled to two appeals.

Secondly, it has always struck me that if you had consideration

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