N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 498

Wednesday, July 30, 1947 (Morning session)

of the citizens of my county and all counties will be served by assuring them a fair trial under the best and most qualified judges. I therefore respectfully urge that you consider again the advantages of including all the functions of the county court in the state system which you have so carefully devised.

MR. HENRY W. PETERSON: May I make an observation, Mrs. Heinz, on your statement that the county judges change with the political complexion of the administration? That has been said by other speakers. It is generally accepted, when it is repeated a number of times, as being a fact. But it doesn't follow throughout the whole of the State. I don't know where it is, in any specific instance, absolutely true. The small County of Gloucester, which is predominately Republican, has a Republican history as staunch and firm as Hudson County's Democratic political complexion. The Republican leaders of Gloucester County have continued a Democrat as Common Pleas judge over the past years - not that there aren't Republican attorneys who would like the job and want to have it, or who could not do it as ably. Nevertheless, he has acquitted himself in such a manner that he is worthy of continuance. I wouldn't charge either political party with too much interference in continuing a capable, able judge if he had acquitted himself during his first appointment.

MRS. HEINZ: There may be - obviously there is - truth to what you say. Having observed my own county, I can only say that the judiciary has changed, in my experience, very regularly with the political changes within the county. I believe, as do many other citizens of both parties in my county, that unfortunately the reason for the selection of at least some individuals has been almost entirely the service rendered to the party. I think that many citizens of both parties, including the party concerned in what we have considered a failure, are agreed on this point.


MR. WARD KREMER: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

I appear on behalf of the Monmouth County Bar Association. As you know, we were here last week to state our views, the principal one of which was that we advocated the retention of a separate Court of Chancery. I certainly don't want to take your time to repeat the reasons we advanced at that time.

When we appeared then, however, we had not had the benefit of an examination of the Article, because it had not yet been circulated. After viewing it, I am forced to state, as representing our committee and our organization, that we think the Article, in its present form, confirms our views that it does away with the great advantages of a separate equity jurisdiction. As was pointed out by

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