|
1
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give us your reasons for
|
|
2
|
that?
|
|
3
|
JUDGE BRUNE: I think one reason is because
|
|
4
|
of the provision that us have had, one of the existing
|
|
5
|
provisions, that the courts ordinarily sit in panels of
|
|
6
|
five and not of seven. I think that is considerably
|
|
7
|
less than ideal.
|
|
8
|
This was before our provision was adopted. His
|
|
9
|
reply was, in substance, that most people seem to think
|
|
10
|
it worked out all right, except the court. There are
|
|
11
|
difficulties in that. If you will look at the number of
|
|
12
|
cases that are put down for rearguinent under the provisions
|
|
13
|
of the present constitutional provision where only three
|
|
14
|
of the five favor one result the losing party is entitled
|
|
15
|
as a right to a reargumsnt. I think you will see that
|
|
16
|
that provision has caused a good many rearguments , which take
|
|
17
|
up a good deal of time and do not seem to be extraordinarilly
|
|
18
|
helpful, I should say.
|
|
19
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Under this provision we would
|
|
20
|
contemplate that the court would sit as a seven-member
|
|
21
|
court and there would not be that provision about a
|
