N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 486

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Afternoon session)

were 56 yes and 2 no. That is about the only question on which there was a practically unanimous agreement.

The second question was quite evidently misunderstood, because it is subdivided, with alternates, and the main question itself wasn't intended to be answered - merely the subdivisions. "Are you in favor of a Supreme Court with original general jurisdiction in all cases?" was the beginning of it. The answer to that was 36 yes and 24 no. As I say, that wasn't intended to be answered at all. It goes on to read, "With a law section and equity and probate section, each exercising the jurisdiction of the other to fully determine each controversy, equity to prevail in the event of a conflict?" - 23 yes, 39 no. They didn't want that. "An appellate section?" - 22 yes, 39 no. They didn't want that. "A unified court of original jurisdiction without law and equity sections?" - 16 yes and 45 no. They didn't want that. Or, "A Court of Chancery separate and apart from courts of law?" - 26 yes and 36 no. They didn't want that. They wanted a court but they didn't want any subdivisions, so I can't throw any light on that. The rest of the answers, I think, are fairly intelligent:

"Are you in favor of a mandatory retirement age for judges of constitutional courts? If the answer is yes, circle the age." We had three ages: 65, 70, and 75. There were 14 who favored 65, 24 favored 70, 16 favored 75, and five of those who answered felt there was no reason for any mandatory retirement age.

"Are you in favor of removing justices of the constitutional courts for misbehavior upon impeachment by the Assembly and trial and conviction by the highest court, except for the highest court judges, where trial and conviction would be by the Senate?" The answers were 46 yes, and 8 no, in favor of judges being impeached.

"Are you in favor of having the Chief Justice assign the lower court judges to the sections and parts of the court from time to time, judges assigned to the appellate division to work there exclusively?" There were 34 who answered yes, and 24 no. Or, "Are you in favor of permanent assignment of judges to the law and equity sections, if established?" To this, 26 answered yes, and 33 no. They didn't want permanent assignments. Or, "Are you in favor of mandatory rotation of the judges at short intervals between the law and equity sections?" The replies were 16 yes, and 42 no. They do favor rotation, but not mandatory rotation.

"Are you in favor of abolishing all prerogative writs and substituting (a) an appeal as of right instead of certiorari to review determinations of statutory tribunals and inferior courts?" - 47 replied yes, and 13 no. "(b) in all other cases a civil action as of right?" - 44 said yes, and 18 said no. "(c) no jury in any of these courts?" - 38 said yes, and 20 no.

"Are you in favor of allowing appeals as of right from all de-

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