N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 730
strated in this State in the not too distant past. If it be said that the jurisdiction has been abused, the abuse has been in the length of time that it has been taken to decide certain of these cases but not in the jurisdiction itself. The jurisdiction is as ancient as common law itself and to abolish it is to deprive the citizen of a right potentially as important as habeas corpus and the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
- 6. Section V, paragraph 1, would give the Legislature the right to take away from the Governor the power to appoint judges of county courts. One can never forsee when quarrels are likely to occur between the Governor and the Legislature. It would be a great mistake if county judges were appointed otherwise than by the Governor.
- 7. Section V, paragraph 3, provides an initial term of seven years for the trial judges, and upon reappointment tenure during good behavior, but singularly enough no such initial term of seven years is provided for justices of the Supreme Court. Appointments to the Supreme Court must come either from the Bar or from among the trial judges and in neither case have we definite assurance of the appointee's fitness for a life appointment without a seven-year trial term. It is respectfully submitted that the same reasons that dictate an initial term of seven years in one court also require it in the Supreme Court.
- 8. By Section VI, paragraph 1, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is made the administrative head of all the courts "subject to its rules" (   i.e.   of the Supreme Court). The quoted words show that the six Associate Justices of the Supreme Court might strip the Chief Justice of his administrative powers. In these circumstances, while the responsibility is cast upon the Chief Justice the grant of power might well prove illusory. I respectfully suggest that the words "subject to its rules" should be deleted.
- 9. Section VI, paragraph 3, providing for three presiding judges, is unfortunate in its entirety. In the first place there may and probably will be more than one part in the Appellate Division. Shall the presiding judge sit in each of these parts? Obviously, he cannot. It would be much better to follow the federal practice and let the senior judge preside in each part of the Appellate Division as they now do in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. There is no need for a presiding judge of the Law Division or a presiding judge of the Equity Division for these trial judges will always sit alone. To have a presiding judge in either of these divisions is to weaken the administrative authority of the Chief Justice.
- 10. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule provides that "the advisory masters appointed to hear matrimonial proceedings shall continue so to do" * * * "unless otherwise provided by law." I cannot believe that it is intended to leave to the Legislature the question of
Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book