N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 546

Wednesday, July 30, 1947 (Afternoon session)

ing this language "prerogative writs," you might cause a conflict with some other provision of the Constitution respecting the writ of habeas corpus. I think any question or any doubt which the use of this language may lead to should now be resolved in writing. We talk of the writ of habeas corpus. Although it is a prerogative writ, it has so many incidental and, I might say, ancillary uses not comparable to any of the other writs that we must be very careful not to confuse the right to the writ of habeas corpus.

Section V, paragraph 1, provides a seven-day notice to the public of the intention of the Governor to appoint a jurist. I doubt, first of all, whether such a provision belongs in the Constitution, and secondly, what benefit, if any, may flow therefrom. I think, to be practical, we have to assume that the average Governor, in appointing the average jurist, does not send in to the Senate the name of the lucky candidate unless he feels quite certain that he has enough votes in the Senate for confirmation. Public notice under those circumstances, it seems to me, would just be a vain gesture. I think it also assumes something which we have no right to assume. I dare say that in the last 20 years, which is as far back as my recollection goes, I don't know of any Governor who has had the temerity to submit to the State Senate the name of a judge for confirmation - that is, a judge of the upper courts - where the man nominated was not qualified to be confirmed and to hold the office. I think we might forget all about this public notice matter and leave it to our Governors who thus far have, I think, made very excellent choices.

Section V, paragraph 2, provides that the Justices of the Supreme and the General Courts shall, before appointment, have been admitted to practice before the highest court of this State. I think "the highest court of this State" is an unnecessary expression. Eventually, let us say in about 10 years, it will definitely be settled that the highest court in this State is the new Supreme Court. Why not say that, and in order to serve the purpose which I think this particular paragraph is intended to serve, namely, to permit, at the present time and until the new Supreme Court is a ten-year-old court, the appointment of men who are now admitted to practice before the Court of Errors and Appeals and who, I assume, will be admitted to practice before the new Supreme Court by reason of that fact. Permit them to tack their years of admission before the Court of Errors and Appeals to the years of admission before the new Supreme Court. In 1959 this phrase will be ambiguous, and I think it ought to come out. You can straighten out your difficulty in the Schedule.

Section V, paragraph 3: It seems to me that there ought to be some objection, I think, on the part of the bar generally and the public as well - and the judges, too - to a constitutional provision

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