CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION AND COURT Ri'FORIvf 
 
THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 THE COLLECTION OF 
 NORTH CAROUNLANA 
 
 Cp351.9U 
 S21c 
 C.3 
 
 This book is due on the last date stampe 
 below unless recalled sooner. It may be 
 renewed only once and must be brought t 
 the North Carolina Collection for renewa 
 
IMSTITIJTE OF GOVEm'iENT 
 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 CHAPEL HILL 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION AND COURT REF0Ri4: 
 A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 
 1959 
 
 By John L. Sanders 
 Assistant Director 
 Institute of Government 
 University of North Carolina 
 Chapel Hill 
 1959 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction ..... 1 
 
 The Proposals 1 
 
 Proposed Constitution 1 
 
 Court Reform Bill h 
 
 Early Developments 6 
 
 Conmittee Proceedings ....... 7 
 
 Committees Organized . 7 
 
 Joint Hearings ....... 8 
 
 Subcommittee on the Courts; 
 
 Organization and Methods 9 
 
 Subcommittee on the Courts: 
 
 Product , , , 11 
 
 Structure and organization 11 
 
 Assignment 12 
 
 Rotation 12 
 
 Trial sessions ......... 12 
 
 Clerks, Sheriffs 12 
 
 District Courts 12 
 
 Magistrates , 13 
 
 Removal Hi 
 
 Jurisdiction , ik 
 
 Appeals llj 
 
 Administrative authority ...... ih 
 
 Procedural rules , 15 
 
 Juries ,, ., 16 
 
 Solicitors , 17 
 
 Court finances ................. 17 
 
 Report 18 
 
 Joint Committee Action l8 
 
 Procedure 18 
 
 Legislative representation ... 18 
 
 Legislative allowances ....... 19 
 
 Local legislation , 19 
 
 Executive allowances ... 20 
 
 Courts 20 
 
 Taxation ..,,..,,....,.,...,. 20 
 
 Schools 21 
 
 Homesteads . . ....... 22 
 
 Insurance . ..... 22 
 
 Separate Committee Sessions 22 
 
 Senate Committee Action , 22 
 
 House Committee Action ........ 23 
 
Za£e 
 Senate Action , . , . ♦ 2l| 
 
 Court Bill: 
 
 Second Reading 2I4. 
 
 Constitutional Revision Bill: 
 
 Second Reading , 28 
 
 Court Bill: 
 
 Third Reading ....... 2$ 
 
 Constitutional Revision Bill; 
 
 Third Reading , 30 
 
 House Action 
 
 30 
 
 Intermediate Developments .....,,,,,..,. 30 
 
 Constitutional Revision Bill: 
 
 Second Reading , 32 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 39 
 
 XX 
 
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION AND COURT REFORM: 
 A LEGISUTIVE HISTORY 
 1959 
 
 Introduction 
 
 Constitutional revision and court improvement are, for a season, dead. 
 This article is neither a requiem for those measures nor an inquest into the 
 cause of their demise in the closing days of the 1959 General Assembly. It 
 is an attempt to chronicle the progress of the proposed Constitution and of 
 the court improvement amendments in a legislative journey -which, for a time, 
 gave promise of successful completion. 
 
 The Proposals 
 
 A round dozen bills before the General Assembly of 1959 called for 
 changes in the State Constitution -- changes ranging from the amendment of a 
 single section to the rewriting of the entire instrument. Two of those 
 measures towered above all others: the proposed new Constitution and the 
 court reform amendments. A summary revie-w of those measures is a necessary 
 preface to an intelligible discussion of their legislative histories. 
 
 Proposed Constitution 
 
 The 195? General Assembly created and Governor Luther H. Hodges appointed 
 the fifteen-member North Carolina Constitutional Commission to study the 91 
 year old State Constitution and recommend needed changes. Mr. Victor S. Bryant 
 
of Durham was its Chairman. The report of that Commission recommended re- 
 writing the -whole Constitution, the changes suggested being too numerous to 
 
 2 
 be effected by individual amendments. 
 
 The proposed Constitution drafted by the Commission represented in large 
 part a careful job of editorial pruning, rearrangement, and modernization, but 
 it also included several significant substantive changes. The Senate was in- 
 creased from So to 60 members and initiative (but not sole authority) in the 
 decennial redistricting of the Senate was shifted from the General Assembly 
 to an ex officio committee of three legislative officers. Decennial re- 
 apportionment of the House of Representatives was made a duty of the Speaker 
 of the House, rather than of the General Assembly. 
 
 Problems of succession to constitutional state executive offices and of 
 determination of issues of official disability were either resolved or their 
 resolution was entrusted to the General Assembly. 
 
 The authority to classify property for taxation and to exempt property 
 from taxation was required to be exercised only by the General Assembly and 
 only on a uniform state-wide basis. Changes were made in income tax exemptions. 
 
 The requirement that the public schools constitute a "general and uniform 
 system" was eliminated, and the constitutional authority of the State Board 
 of Education was reduced. 
 
 ^PORT OF THE WORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTIOML COMISSION (Raleigh, 1959). 
 
 2 
 
 For a detailed discussion and full text of the proposed Constitution, 
 
 see The Proposed Constitution of North Carolina; An Analysis , POPULAR 
 GOVERNMENT (Feb. 19^9). 
 
Important changes were recommended in the judicial department. A General 
 Court of Justice ijas established embracing an appellate division, a Superior 
 Court division, and a local trial court division. The proposed Constitution 
 required legislative creation of a uniform system of District Courts and 
 Trial Commissioners to replace by I965 the present varied multitude of recorder- 
 type courts and justice of the peace courts, and required uniformity of fees 
 and costs in the courts mthin each division of the General Court. It sought 
 to require the General Assembly to impose uniformity of jurisdiction upon the 
 courts within each division. Legislative creation of an intermediate Court 
 of Appeals and enlargement of the Supreme Court were authorized. 
 
 The General Assembly retained its power to prescribe the jurisdiction of 
 all courts below the Supreme Court, to provide an appeals system, to establish 
 all court and solicitorial districts, to make rules of court procedure (except 
 for the appellate division), to fix the times for holding Superior Court trial 
 sessions, and to fix court fees and costs. The General Assembly was authorized 
 (but not required) to continue rotation of Superior Court Judges. Popular 
 election of Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court Judges was 
 required, but the method of selecting District Court Judges was left to the 
 legislature, and appointment of Trial Commissioners by Superior Court Judges 
 was required. 
 
 Legislative enactment of uniform methods of listing and drawing jurors 
 was required, and waiver of jury trial in criminal cases was authorized. 
 Compensation of magistrates in criminal cases only if the defendant were 
 convicted was abolished. 
 
 The report of the Constitutional Commission was released February I6, 19$9. 
 
 Identical bills (SB 99, HB 226) calling for the submission of the proposed 
 Constitution to the people at a special election to be held September 29, 1959} 
 were introduced in the two houses on Ilarch 9. 
 
Court Reform Bill 
 
 The second major constitutional measure consisted, of a set of amendments 
 extensively recastinr; the court structure of the State. It was drafted by 
 the Committee on Improving and Expediting the Administration of Justice in 
 North Carolina (generally called the "Court Study Committee"), an agency of 
 the North Carolina Bar Association, after an intensive three-year study of 
 court needs. State Senator J. Spencer Bell of Charlotte x^as Chairman of the 
 Committee. 
 
 The Court Study Committee proposals^ contemplated a uniform and unified 
 court system composed of a General Court of Justice consisting of an appellate 
 division (the Supreme Court and in future a Court of Appeals), a Superior 
 Court division (the present Superior Courts unchanged), and a local trial 
 court division (District Courts with Ttogistrates attached as officers of 
 those courts). 
 
 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was prescribed by the Constitution) 
 jurisdiction of all other divisions and officers of the General Court of 
 Justice was to be prescribed by rule of the State Supreme Court, subject to 
 constitutional limitations on the jurisdiction of the District Courts and 
 Magistrates. 
 
 The Supreme Court was also empowered to prescribe a proper system of 
 appeals (subject to constitutional guarantees of appeal rights), to make 
 rules of practice and procedure for all divisions of the General Court, to 
 fix the times for regular jury trial sessions of Superior Court, and to 
 
 3 
 
 See REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING AND E^CPEDITING THE ADMINIS- 
 TRATION OF JUSTICE IN NORTH CAROLINA (Dec. 1958). 
 
exercise general administrative and fiscal supervision over the General Court 
 of Justice. 
 
 All Judges of the Superior Courts Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court 
 ■were to be popularly elected. District Court Judges were to be appointed by 
 the Chief Justice on nomination by the senior regular resident Superior 
 Court Judge of the district , and Magistrates viere to be appointed in the 
 same manner. 
 
 Establishment of Superior Court judicial and solicitorial districts 
 remained with the legislature, but establishment of District Court districts 
 was left to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General -was given administrative 
 supervision of the Solicitors. The State vias assigned all fees and costs 
 (but not fines) collected by all courts , and in turn assumed responsibility 
 for their operational costs. The fixing of all salaries, fees, and costs v&s 
 left to the General Assembly, as was ultimate fiscal control of the courts. 
 
 Identical bills (SB 9ii^ HB 193) to submit these constitutional changes 
 to the voters for adoption or rejection as a package at the next general 
 election were introduced in both Houses on Ilarch 5. 
 
 The strong resemblance between the text of Article IV (the court article) 
 of the proposed Constitution and that in the court reform bill is accounted 
 for by the fact that the Constitutional Commission, in developing its proposed 
 court article; used the draft revision of Article IV prepared by the Court 
 Study Committee, and the two groups maintained close contact at the drafting 
 stage. The most conspicuous difference betxiieen the two plains concerned the 
 proper locus of power over the courts — whether it should be fixed in the 
 State ^ upreme Court as the Court Study Committee wished or remain in the 
 General Assembly as the Constitutional Commission preferred. 
 
Early Developments 
 
 In a special message"^ delivered to the General Assembly on I'ferch 12, 
 Governor Hodges approved most of the proposals of the Constitutional 
 Commission except as to the courts. His comments on the need for court 
 improvement and how to get it amounted to an endorsement of the main feat- 
 ures of the Court Study Committee's recommendations. 
 
 To meet legislative misgivings about vesting in the State Supreme Court, 
 by the Constitution itself, extensive administrative powers over the courts, 
 the Governor suggested that the new Constitution might reserve to the General 
 Assembly the authority to act in this area by a three -fifths vote of each 
 House, thus enabling it to override any objectionable administrative action 
 by the Supreme Court, 
 
 At that stage of the session, prospects for legislative approval of a 
 revision of the entire Constitution appeared dimj pi'ospects for favorable 
 action on some version of the separate court amendments were somewhat brighter 
 but by no means assured. It was clear that court improvement would be the 
 heart of any action taken, whether in the form of a rewritten Constitution or 
 of limited amendments to the old document. 
 
 The General Assembly's task of finding a scheme of court betterment 
 which would satisfy the constitutionally required three-fifths of the members 
 
 SPECIAL IHSSAGE OF GOVERNOR LUTHER H. HODGES TO THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL 
 ASSEMBLY, THURSDAY, i'lARCH 12, 19^9 (Raleigh, 1959). The Governor also suggested 
 legislative consideration of an executive veto and of allowing the people to 
 elect a Governor to a second successive term. These proposals found no legis- 
 lative champion, however, and so were not considered either in committee or in 
 floor debate. 
 
of each house and a majority of the people of the State who -would vote on 
 such amendments -was complicated perhaps as much as it was helped by the 
 presence before it of two substantially differing sets of proposals for 
 court reform, each the product of a distinguished group of lawyers and 
 laymen. The legislative problem, then, was to find some blend of the two 
 suggested plans which would be acceptable to the advocates of each and at 
 the same time draw the necessary support of a large number of uncoromitted 
 legislators. 
 
 Late in February an informal suggestion was made that the State Auditor 
 be replaced by a Comptroller, popularly elective but responsible to the 
 General Assembly, It aroused no lasting interest and no formal proposal of 
 this change was made. 
 
 In mid-I>iarch there was some newpaper discussion of putting off all 
 changes in the Constitution and courts until a special legislative session 
 later in the year. Neither legislators nor the Governor gave much public 
 encouragement to the idea and it faded quickly. 
 
 Committee Proceedings 
 
 Committees Organized 
 
 Early in the session the legislative conmittees which would consider the 
 constitutional proposals were appointed. They were the Senate Committee on 
 Constitution (newly created for the purpose)^ composed of 23 Senators with 
 Senator Claude Currie of Durham as Chairman, and the House Committee on 
 Constitutional Amendments, consisting of 33 Representatives with Representative 
 A, A. Zollicoffer^ Jr., of Vance as Chairman,'^ 
 
 5 
 The Senate Committee on Constitution included two members of the Con- 
 stitutional Commission, Senators Claude Currie of Durham and Lindsay C. VJarren 
 
Joint Hearings 
 
 Committee hearings began March 18, The Lenate and House Committees sat 
 jointly from that date until May 26 in order to expedite public hearings 
 and to resolve potential differences between the two groups at that stage if 
 possible. Twenty such sessions -were held, and they were generally well 
 attended by committee members and the public. 
 
 For five joint committee sessions, proponents of the Court Study Com- 
 mittee's bill (SB 9ii, HB 198) presented their case. For three sessions, 
 advocates of the proposed Constitution explained their bill (SB 99 j HE 226). 
 One full session was devoted to hearing statements from organizational 
 representatives and individuals on both the constitutional revision and 
 judicial proposals. 
 
 On April 2k, a Joint Subcommittee on the Courts was created by the two 
 parent Committees and all court proposals were referred to it with instruc- 
 tions to bring in a draft of Article IV (the court article) for inclusion in 
 
 of Beaufort, and Senator J. Spencer Bell of Mecklenburg, Chairman of the 
 Court Study Committee of the North Carolina Bar Association. The House 
 Committee on Constitutional Amendments included two members of the Consti- 
 tutional Commission, Representatives John Kerr, Jr., of Warren and 
 Edward F. Yarborough of Fran]<lin, and one member of the Court Study Committee, 
 Representative D, G, Bell of Carteret. 
 
 In addition to SB 99 (HB 226) and SB 9^ (HB I98), the proposals for 
 constitutional amendments affecting the courts were SB 126, authorizing 
 temporary service by a Superior Court Judge on the i.upreme Court dviring the 
 incapacity of a Justice; SB 127, authorizing the General Assembly to provide 
 that an Associate Justice might exercise the assignment powers of the Chief 
 
the proposed Constitution. Other subcommittees; four in number, vere created 
 from time to time to inquire into specific problems encountered by the 
 Committees, 
 
 The parent Committees began section-by-section consideration of the non- 
 judicial portions of the proposed Constitution on April 29. This process -was 
 completed in eight joint sessions. Contrary to expectations , so little com- 
 mittee opposition to the proposed Constitution developed that by May 15, when 
 virtually all of the revision except Article IV had been tentatively agreed 
 upon, it looked as if general constitutional revision might well win legis- 
 lative approval — provided a satisfactory compromise could be reached on 
 Article IV, 
 
 Subcommittee on the Courts : 
 Organization and Methods 
 
 The Joint Subcommittee on the Courts, composed of five Senators' and 
 
 Justice during the latter' s incapacity] SB 128, giving the Superior Court 
 original jurisdiction in all criminal cases concurrent with that of the 
 inferior courts and justices of the peace and abolishing derivative juris- 
 diction; and HB 593, requiring that Superior Court Solicitors be elected 
 by the voters of the entire State, rather than those of the respective 
 solicitorial districts. None of these last four bills was reported out 
 of committee, although ideas from some of them were embraced in the consti- 
 tutional and court bills which vere reported out. 
 
 7 
 Senators V/illiam Medford of Hayvjood, Archie K. Davis of Pbrsyth, J. flax 
 
 Thomas of Union, Edwin S. Lanier of Orange, and J, Spencer Bell of Mecklenburg. 
 
10 
 
 o 
 
 seven Representatives'^ under the co -chairmanship of Senator VJilliam Medford 
 of Hajrwood and Repr'esentative VJ. C. Harris, Jr. ^ of VJake;, began -Hork April 30. 
 In 13 sessions J the last held May I8, the Subcommittee hammered out a judicial 
 article for the proposed Constitution. 
 
 Its final product was a painstakingly accomplished blend of elements from 
 the often divergent proposals of the Constitutional Commission and the Court 
 rtudy Committee J with several significant contributions by the Subcommittee 
 itself. 
 
 It would be difficult to say which of the proposed court plans won 
 greater favor with the Subcommittee, I'lany features of the two texts of Article 
 I^' were identical or nearly so and the Subcommittee in effect adopted both 
 texts. In several instances, such as the issue of who should draw District 
 Court district lines, the Constitutional Commission was followed. In several 
 other instances, including the critical grant to the Supreme Court of adminis- 
 trative authority over the court system, the Court Study Committee was followed. 
 Parts of both plans were used in some cases, as when it was provided that 
 District Court Judges should be chosen as provided by uniform general law (as 
 the Constitutional Commission recommended), but that in multi- judge districts 
 the Chief Justice should designate one of the District Judges as Chief District 
 Judge (as recommended by the Court Study Copimittee). And on several important 
 points, such as the grant of procedural rule-making power to the Supreme Court, 
 the Subcommittee wrote its own provisions, entirely or in part, introducing 
 ideas not found in either of the bills referred to it. 
 
 Representatives U. C. Harris, Jr., of ¥ake, Thomas Turner of Guilford, 
 Thoiaas G. Dill of Edgecombe, Ered W. Bynum, Jr.;, of Richmond, H. P. Taylor, Jr. 
 of Anson, George R, Uzzell of Rowan, and Harry Horton of Chatham. 
 
11 
 
 Thus it may be fairly said that while the Subcommittee drew on several 
 sources, the draft of Article IV which it prepared was its ovm. This was a 
 vital factor in subsequent developments, because it gave the members of the 
 Subcommittee a sense of personal involvement in the court proposals and a 
 deeper interest in their success. 
 
 Subcommittee on the Courts ; 
 Product 
 
 Since the draft of Article IV prepared by the Subcommittee differed 
 substantially from either set of court proposals already discussed and since 
 it underwent only a few changes in its passage through the two parent Com- 
 mittees and the Senate, it seems appropriate to discuss that article in some 
 detail here, noting at later stages only the chanf^es then ma.de. 
 
 Structure and organization : Structurally the court system recommended 
 by the Subcommittee was the same as that proposed by both the Constitutional 
 Commission and the Court Study Committee. The judicial power of the State 
 was vested in a Court for the Ti'ial of Impeachments (the Senate, unchanged), 
 a General Court of Justice, and administrative agencies granted such power 
 by the General Assembly. 
 
 The General Court of Justice was declared to be a "unified judicial 
 system for purposes of jurisdiction, operation, and administration" and 
 comprised an appellate division, a Superior Court division;, and a District 
 Court division. 
 
 The General Assembly was authorized to increase the number of Associate 
 Justices of the Supreme Court from siic to eight. It was also empowered to 
 establish, on recommendation of the Supreme Court, an intermediate Court of 
 Appeals within the appellate division and (with the advice of the Supreme 
 Court) to determine its structure and organization. 
 
12 
 
 Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals and 
 Superior Court were to be elected by the people for eight-year terms. 
 
 The Superior Courts •were little changed. Superior Court judicial dis- 
 tricts and divisions continued to be dravm and the number of Superior Court 
 Judges to be fixed by the General Assembly, 
 
 Assignment ; Judges of the Superior and District Courts vjere to be 
 assigned by the Chief Justice under rules of the Supreme Court. Court of 
 Appeals and Superior Court Judges could be assigned to temporary duty -with 
 the Supreme Court and Superior Court Judges could be assigned to temporary 
 duty with the Court of Appeals. 
 
 Rotation ; Although the Court Study Committee had recommended omission 
 of all reference to rotation of Superior Court Judges and the Constitutional 
 Commission favored leaving continuation of that practice in the discretion 
 of the legislature, the Subcommittee's Article IV made rotation among the 
 judicial districts -within a division mandatory, as at present. It did, how- 
 ever, omit the present provision barring judges from holding all the courts 
 of the same district more often than once in four years. 
 
 Trial sessions ; "Regular trial sessions" (rather than "terms") of 
 Superior Court were to be held at times fixed by a calendar of courts 
 issued by the Supreme Court. 
 
 Clerks, Sheriffs ; A Clerk of Superior Court and a Sheriff continued to 
 be popularly elected in each county for four-year terms. 
 
 District Courts ; All existing inferior courts were abolished effective 
 July 1, 1963', or by such earlier date as the General Assembly might set. In 
 their place was established a uniform system of District Courts, The General 
 
13 
 
 Assembly was required to divide the Superior Court judicial districts into 
 a convenient number of District Court districts and to prescribe •where the 
 District Court should sit in each county. 
 
 One or more Magistrates were required in each county. In some respects 
 the Magistrates were to be the successors of the justices of the peace , but 
 significantly, they were to be officers of the District Court and not pre- 
 siding officers of independent courts as are the justices of the peace. 
 
 District Judges were to be selected for each district for four-year 
 terms ". . . in a manner provided by general lavi uniformly applicable in every 
 local court district of the State." ^iJhile the Constitutional Commission had 
 used that phrase with the thought that it required the same selection method 
 for every District Judge in the State, it was adopted by the Subcommittee with 
 the understanding that it probably would permit the General Assembly to mal-ce 
 some variation between cl&sses of districts in the method of selecting those 
 
 judges, so long as the classification rested upon some reasonable basis such 
 
 9 
 as population differences. In multi- judge districts, the Chief Justice -was 
 
 required to designate one of the District Judges as Chief District Judge, 
 
 Magistrates ; Magistrates were to be appointed for two-year terms by the 
 Chief Justice on nomination of the senior regular resident Superior Court 
 Judges of the respective districts in which the Magistrates were to serve. 
 
 The number of District Judges and Magistrates was to be set by the 
 General Assembly, 
 
 9 
 
 Similar phrases in several other state constitutions have been construed 
 
 to permit variation between classes, although apparently the original intent 
 of some of the provisions so construed was to prohibit such variation. 
 
Removal ; Procedures for the removal of judges a^d clerks were similar 
 to those now in force, except that the General Assembly vias to provide re- 
 moval procedures for District Judges, 
 
 Jurisdiction ; The Subcommittee's Article IV left the jurisdiction of the 
 Supreme Court unchanged , both as to appeals from the Icirjer courts and claims 
 against the State. Should a Court of Appeals be established, its jurisdiction 
 was to be prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, subject to a constitution- 
 ally guaranteed right of final appeal to the Supreme Court in all cases involving; 
 a construction of the state or federal Constitutions or a sentence of death or 
 life imprisonment. 
 
 Jurisdiction of the Superior Court, Clerk of Superior Court, District 
 Court, and Magistrate would have been fixed by uniform general law — again 
 probably permitting variation between classes so long as a reasonable classi- 
 fication basis were used. This was one of the most significant departures 
 from the Court Study Committee's plan, which would have had jiarisdiction of 
 the Superior and inferior courts determined by rule of the Supreme Court, 
 subject to constitutional limitations on the maximum jurisdiction of the 
 District Courts, limitations which could have been oveiridden by concurrence 
 of the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. 
 
 The General Assembly was empowered to permit waiver of jurisdictional 
 limits in civil cases. 
 
 Appeals ; The system of appeals was also left to be prescribed by law^ 
 rather than by rule of the Supreme Court as the Court Study Committee had 
 proposed. 
 
 Administrative authority ; In agreeing that administrative supervision 
 of the General Court of Justice and authority to make rules of court adminis- 
 
15 
 
 tration should be vested in the Supreme Court and that the Chief Justice 
 should be the executive head of the court system, the Subcommittee adopted one 
 of the two most vital elements which it borrowed from the Court Study Committee's 
 plan. (The other element was the grant of procedural rule-making power to the 
 Supreme Court.) At that point the Subcommittee gave meaning to the concept of 
 a "unified" General Court of Justice -- not as much meaning, to be sure, as it 
 would have had if the Supreme Court had been given authority to fix the juris- 
 diction of all courts below it, prescribe the appeals system, and exercise 
 fiscal supervision over the courts, as the Court Study Committee had proposed^ 
 but it did fix in the Supreme Court 3?esponsibility for seeing that the -.entire 
 court system functioned efficiently from the administralave s'jp.ivJpolnt and gave 
 the Court much of the necessary authority to fulfill that responsibility.^ 
 
 Procedural rules ; The grant of procedural rule-making power to the Supreme 
 Court was one of the instances in which the Subcommittee developed its own pro- 
 vision. It concurred in the Court Study Committee's recommendation that the 
 Supreme Court make all rules of civil and criminal procedure for all divisions 
 of the General Court of Justice, but was iinwilling to give that Court final 
 authority in the making of such rules for the trial courts. Therefore the Sub- 
 committee gave the General Assembly a veto over all such rules made by the 
 Supreme Court for the trial courts. 
 
 The procedure was to be as follows: All existing statutory and court-made 
 rules governing practice and procedure in the Superior and inferior courts were 
 to carry over automatically as the initial rules for the Superior and District 
 
 10 
 
 No interest was shown, either by the Subcommittee or the Committees, in 
 
 the Governor's suggestion that any administrative authority granted the Supreme 
 
 Court be made subject to being overridden by a three-fifths vote of the General 
 Assembly. 
 
16 
 
 Court divisions of the Genefal Court of Justice. Ajiy change made in those rules 
 by the £upreni6 Court — any new rule adopted and any amendraent or repeal of an 
 existing rule — before taking effect had to be submitted to the next regular 
 session of the General Assembly within 30 days after it cbnvened. 
 
 That General Assembly could, by joint resolution, reject any rule of 
 practice or procedure or any rule change so submitted to it. If not so re- 
 jected, rules or changes therein were to take effect 90 days after adjournment 
 of the legislative session to which submitted. Note that only the General 
 Assembly to which rules or changes were submitted had any authority to touch 
 them; if the legislative veto power were not then exercised, the rules were 
 put beyond future legislative interference. 
 
 Modelled in part on the federal rules adoption procedure, this scheme 
 gave the General Assembly assurance as to what the initial rules of the new 
 court system would be and an opportunity to examine all changes therein and 
 to prevent any unwanted rule from taking effect. At the same time, it gave 
 the Supreme Court the necessary assurance that any new rules of procedure it 
 might adopt would not be in continuing danger of piecemeal modification by 
 the legislature. 
 
 The legislative veto did not apply to procedural rules for the appellate 
 division or to court administrative rules adopted by the Supreme Court. 
 
 The Subcommittee concurred in the need for publication of proposed rules 
 and hearings thereon before their adoption by the Supreme Court. It also 
 provided for a Courts Advisory Commission to advise the Supreme Court and the 
 General Assembly, upon request, on the administration of justice. 
 
 Juries ; As did both study groups, the Joint Subcommittee on the Courts 
 included in its Article IV authorization for the waiver (under certain safe- 
 guards) of jury trial in non-capital criminal cases as well as in civil cases. 
 
I'.' O't 
 
17 
 
 It agreed that the Gener&l Assembly should have authority to permit juries 
 in civil cases to reach a verdict upon a vote of as feiro as five-sixths of the 
 jurors, and to authorize juries of as £ev as six persons in the District Court. 
 Provision by uniform general laiJ for the listing and draviing of grand and 
 petit jurors was required. 
 
 Solicitors ; The Subcommittee, following both study groups, left the Soli- 
 citors to be elected by the voters of the several solicitorial districts and 
 left the number and laying out of these districts to the General Assembly, 
 However, it gave the Attorney General supervision over the Solicitors in the 
 performance of all of their duties including the prosecution of criminal cases 
 in the Superior Court. Prosecution of criminal actions in the District Courts 
 and before Magistrates was left to be dealt with by uniform general law. To 
 the Attorney General went the further duty of advising the General Assembly 
 when revision of the solicitorial districts was necessary. 
 
 Court finances ; On the issue of court financing, the Subcommittee agreed 
 with the Constitutional Commission that the Constitution should say no more 
 than that the schedule of fees and costs must be uniform state-wide within 
 each division of the General Court of Justice, It did not accept the proposal 
 that all fees and costs (but not fines) collected by all courts should be paid 
 into the State and that the State in turn should pay the costs of operation of 
 all courts. The objection to this innovation arose partly from its potential 
 cost to the State and partly from the profit-making character of many city 
 recorder-type courts and the loss of municipal revenue which the change would 
 entail. 
 
 Judicial officers' salaries were to be fixed by the General Assembly, as 
 now, but it was forbidden that the compensation of any judge or magistrate 
 should depend on his decision in any criminal case. 
 
18 
 
 Report ! The Subcommittee on May 20 filed -with the parent Committees its 
 report, consistins of a draft of Article IV and recommendations for .minor 
 court-related changes in other articles of the Constitution, This report was 
 veil received by legislators and praised by the Governor and the press as a 
 happy compromise of differences. 
 
 Joint Committee Action 
 
 Procedure : All amendments adopted during consideration of the proposed 
 Constitution by the Senate and House Committees in joint session vere con- 
 sidered tentative, since actual authority to propose amendments lay vith the 
 two Committees acting separately and on behalf of their respective houses. 
 This procedure served to prevent differences between the two Committees 
 until late in the session. 
 
 Except for the judicial and senatorial representation provisions, few 
 changes of note were made during the joint sessions in the proposed Constitution 
 (SB 99, HB 226) as introduced. These changes will be discussed in the order in 
 which they are found in the text of the proposed Constitution. 
 
 Legislative representation ; The longest and warmest debate of the joint 
 committee sessions came over amendments restoring the present provisions govern- 
 ing the size of the Senate and the method of redistricting the State for Senators 
 in place of the provisions recommended by the Constitutional Commission, Those 
 recommendations had included the addition of ten Senators to the present 5C and 
 the creation of an ex officio committee of three legislative officers 
 (President and President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House) 
 to propose a redistricting plan after each census; if the General Assembly 
 failed to amend or reject the plan, it became effective as proposed. 
 
19 
 
 The representatives of larger counlies generally supported either the en- 
 larged Senate or the new redistricting procedure or both, pointing out the futile 
 demands of the more populous counties for the increased legislative representa- 
 tion to which they are now entitled, the failure of the General Assembly to re- 
 district the Senate after the 19$0 census, and the improbability of its doing so 
 in the foreseeable future under the present method of redistricting. 
 
 Advocates of the amendments objected to having the General Assembly deprived 
 of any part of its present authority and initiative in redistricting. They also 
 objected to the fact that weight is given to population in both houses of the 
 General Assembly under the present representation scheme and to the increased 
 weight which would be given that factor under the 60-member Senate suggestion. 
 
 After discussion for two joint sessions, the amendment retaining the Senate 
 at 50 members carried 21-1$ (Senators and Representatives voting jointly). The 
 amendment leaving senatorial redistricting entirely to the General Assembly 
 passed on a voice vote after being amended to make clear that, while it is the 
 legislature's duty to redistrict at the first session convening after the 
 return of each census, failure to act at that session does not relieve subsequent 
 sessions of the duty to act on the matter. 
 
 Legislative allowances ; The proviso limiting subsistence and travel 
 allowance rates of legislators to not more than those paid members of state 
 boards and commissions generally was stricken on the ground that a legislator 
 has necessarily greater living expenses, extending over a longer period, than 
 do members of state boards. 
 
 Local legislation ; The prohibitions against special or local legislation 
 relating to health, sanitation, the abatement of general nuisances, cemeteries, 
 and the pay of jurors were deleted. 
 
20 
 
 Executive allowances ; A provision which might be construed to prohibit the 
 payment of allowances to elective state executive officers was stricken, since it 
 was thought desirable to avoid any question of the validity of subsistence and 
 travel allowances now paid those officers while on official business. 
 
 Courts: The Committees spent two full sessions considering the report of 
 the Joint Subcommittee on the Courts and adopted Article IV as drafted by the 
 Subcommittee with only a feu changes. Three changes merit notice. 
 
 The senior Associate Justice available was empowered to perform the Chief 
 Justice's duties during the latter 's absence or incapacity. 
 
 The Chief Justice was permitted to assign a District Judge only within 
 the local court district for which selected except for temporary duty outside 
 his home district. 
 
 Concern was expressed over the fact that, once the Court of Appeals was 
 established, the Supreme Court could provide that certain types of cases would 
 not be appealable to the Supreme Court as a matter of right but would be re- 
 viewable by that Court only upon writ which that Court might in its discretion 
 deny. An amendment was adopted insuring that the right to petition for such 
 writ could not be denied. 
 
 Taxation ; Some sentiment was expressed by committee members for a prohibi- 
 tion against the taxation of real property by the State. (No such tax has 
 been levied since 1933,) That prohibition was not approved, but an amendment 
 was adopted with the intention of limiting the property tax which the State may 
 levy for all purposes, including schools, to a maximum of ^i on the $100 
 
 11 
 An absolute right of final appeal to the Supreme Court was guaranteed in 
 
 all cases involving a state or federal constitutional question or a sentence of 
 
 death or life imprisonment. 
 
21 
 
 valuation. Property held for "cultural" purposes was added to the several 
 categories of property which the General Assembly may exempt from taxation. 
 
 Although there was objection to the omission of the present constitutional 
 right on the part of a wife with separate income to her own $1,000 income tax 
 exemption (her husband meanwhile getting a si!2jOOO exemption because of the 
 marriage), that benefit was not put back in the proposed Constitution. The 
 constitutionally guaranteed minimum exemption for a married couple was left at 
 |2,000, which might be shared where both have income. 
 
 Schools : The most controversial feature of the proposed Constitution as 
 drafted by the Constitutional Commission was the deletion of the existing 
 mandate that the public schools be treated by the General Assembly as a 
 "general and uniform system of public schools". That deletion was made by 
 the Commission on recommendation of the Attorney General. Following criticism 
 of the Commission's action by the Governor and state school officials, the 
 Attorney General stated that there was no overriding legal necessity for the 
 change and the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission suggested restoration 
 of the "general and uniform" phrase. This was done by the Committees. 
 
 While the authority of the State Board of Education to supervise and 
 administer the free public schools of the State (also deleted by the Consti- 
 tutional Commission on recommendation of the Attorney General) was not re- 
 stored ;, an amendment was adopted by the Committees directing the Board to 
 prescribe minimum courses of study for the free public schools. Other com- 
 mittee amendments struck out the Board's constitutional power to establish 
 school districts and denied it authority over pupil assignment except where 
 specifically granted by the legislature. 
 
 12 
 
 There is now a ^p limit on the state property tax, but apparently it 
 
 does not apply to taxes levied for the public schools. 
 
r. .o 
 
22 
 
 All property rights now vested in the State Board of Education (title 
 to the swamp lands and other assets of the Literary Fund) were revested in 
 the State, although the net proceeds of such property continued to be ear- 
 marked for the public schools. 
 
 Homesteads ; A move to increase the homestead exemption figure from 
 $1,000 to $2,000 was rejected. 
 
 Insurance ; An unsuccessful attempt was made to impose some limit on the 
 presently unlimited exemption granted insurance purchased by a man on his oi-m 
 life for the benefit of his wife and children. 
 
 Having completed consideration of the proposed Constitution, the Senate 
 and House Committees concluded their joint sessions on Kay 26. No formal 
 action was taken in those sessions on any bill except SB 99 (HB 226), the 
 proposed Constitution. 
 
 Separate Committee Sessions 
 
 The Senate Committee on Constitution and the House Committee on Constitu- 
 tional Amendments began separate sittings on May 2?. Both Committees started 
 from the same point: SB 99 (HB 226) as tentatively amended in the joint 
 sessions. Because most of the points of controversy had already been settled 
 to the mutual satisfaction of the two Committees, only a few differences de- 
 veloped in the separate committee sessions and these were limited to specific, 
 material, and readily understandable issues. 
 
 Senate Committee Action 
 
 In two sessions the Senate Committee on Constitution eliminated the 
 authorization for a Court of Appeals, struck out the provision for waiver 
 of jury trial in criminal cases, beat down an effort to delete the judicial 
 

 •■''■'**£.i 
 
 :.j ^U\. 
 
23 
 
 administrative authority of the Supreme Court, rejected an attempt to give 
 the legislature the power to amend rules of practice and procecure adopted 
 by the Supreme Court, and fixed the effective date of the proposed Consti- 
 tution (if approved by the General Assembly and the people) at January 1, 
 i960. It adopted all other amendments which had been agreed upon in the 
 joint committee sessions. 
 
 The Senate Committee on May 2 8 voted to report SB 99 favorably as amended, 
 and to report favorably a committee substitute for SB 9U (the separate court 
 bill) containing the same judicial provisions as SB 33 as amended. At this 
 point it vias generally assumed that only the proposed Constitution would go 
 to the people for a votej however, the committee substitute for SB 9U was 
 reported as a precautionary measure, to be acted on in the event that revision 
 of the entire Constitution should prove unacceptable to the General Assembly. 
 
 House Committee Action 
 
 The House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, meeting for three 
 sessions, agreed with the fenate Committee that x^jaiver of jury trial should 
 not be allowed in criminal cases and that the effective date of the proposed 
 Constitution should be January 1, i960. It exempted the !:olicitors from 
 supervision by the Attorney General in prosecuting criminal cases in the 
 Superior Court. It also decided that the prohibition against special 
 legislation relating to health and sanitation (which the two Committees had 
 agreed to strike) should be restored to the Constitution. Efforts to elimi- 
 nate the Court of Appeals and to allow either house of the General Assembly 
 to reject rules of procedure made by the Supreme Court were defeated. All 
 other amendments agreed upon in the joint sessions were adopted by the House 
 Committee. 
 
2k 
 
 The House Committee on May 29 voted to report favorably a committee sub- 
 stitute for HB 226 embracing all amendments irohich it had adopted, and also 
 
 to report favorably a committee substitute for HB 198 containing the same 
 
 13 
 court provisions as the committee substitute for HB 226, 
 
 Senate Action 
 
 Court Bill ; 
 Second Reading 
 
 After brief strategic uncertainty, it was decided to have the Senate 
 consider the court and constitutional bills ahead of the House. 
 
 The Senate committee substitute for the court bill (SB 9h) was routinely 
 adopted by the Senate on June 2, but consideration of the bill on its second 
 reading was postponed to June h on motion of its supporters. Consideration 
 of the constitutional revision bill (SB 99), embracing the same court pro- 
 visions as SB 9U, V3as also deferred to June h. 
 
 Those in charge of piloting the court bill through the Senate decided 
 to have it debated and acted on before the proposed Constitution so that 
 the issue of court reform might be considered on its own merits, unencumbered 
 by the non-judicial features of the proposed Constitution, The judicial 
 
 13 
 
 Copies of the report of the Joint Subcommittee on the Courts, the amend- 
 ments tentatively adopted in joint sessions of the Senate and House committees, 
 the Senate cominittee amendments to SB 99, the text of SB 99 as passed by the 
 Senate, and the committee substitutes for SB 9li, HB 198, and HB 226 have been 
 deposited in the State Supreme Court Library, the Library of the School of Law of 
 the University of North Carolina, and the Library of the Institute of Government. 
 
25 
 
 article was the anticipated battleground, and it seemed likely that if a 
 generally acceptable judicial article were adopted. Senate approval of the 
 rest of the proposed Constitution would be fairly certain. 
 
 For a week prior to June I4. there had been a mounting threat to the court 
 proposals in the shape of an anticipated effort on the Senate floor to strike 
 out or seriously weaken the grant of judicial administrative authority to 
 the Supreme Court. Such an attempt had been repulsed in the Senate Committee 
 on Constitution but its backers were undaunted. A less powerful but serious 
 threat was aimed at the procedural rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. 
 
 The court reform forces faced a dismal prospect. They considered it 
 critical that the administrative authority of the Supreme Court neither be 
 knocked out entirely nor seriously weakened by amendment j if this happened 
 the court improvement fight would probably have to be forfeited for the 
 session. Yet they could not count the 30 votes necessary for Senate passage 
 of the court bill as it came from committee.^ 
 
 Anticipated opposition to the bill as it then read consisted of two 
 groups: those who demanded substantial weakening if not elimination of its 
 judicial administration features as a condition of their support, and those who 
 for various reasons were not expected to vote for the bill in any fonn. In 
 
 SB 98, granting the Attorney General by statute general administrative 
 authority over the Solicitors and their assistants, granting office expense 
 allowances to Solicitors and increasing their pay effective in I963 and prohibit- 
 ing the private practice of law by Solicitors after that date, and requiring the 
 Attorney General to recommend to the General Assembly revision of the solicitor- 
 ial districts when needed had been defeated 21 to 2li on its second reading in the 
 Senate on aay 26. That bill had been drafted by the Court Study Committee at 
 the request of the 19^7 General Assembly. 
 
26 
 
 combination, these opposition groups might or might not be able to put 
 across crippling amendments, but they could almost certainly block passage 
 of any bill unacceptable to them. As the June k deadline approached, it 
 became increasingly clear that some accommodation -was essential if any court 
 bill acceptable to the court reform supporters iNias to be enacted. 
 
 The recognized principals in this drama viere Senator J. Spencer Dell of 
 Mecklenburg, Chairman of the Bar Association's Court Study Committee and 
 chief of the legislative campaign for the court bill, and Senator Lindsay C, 
 Warren of Beaufort, veteran of the General Assembly and the United States 
 Congress, former Comptroller-General of the United States, member of the 
 Constitutional Commission, and possessor of ■weighty influence in both houses. 
 
 The efforts made in the early days of June to reach the necessary 
 accomodation between the supporters of the court bill as it came from com- 
 mittee and the opponents of the Judicial administration provisions of that 
 bill were graphically described by a well-informed journalist in these words s 
 In personal conversation and through intermediaries, 
 
 including Gov. Hodges and his liason man, Joe Eagles, Bell and 
 
 Warren sparred with one another for several days. 
 
 Warren wanted to insert a phrase saying, in effect, that 
 
 administrative rules laid down by the Supreme Court would stand 
 
 unless they were in conflict with laws passed subsequently. 
 
 This, Bell felt, would invite chaos. 
 
 Bell held out for a provision saying that administrative 
 
 rules would stand unless overturned by a three-fifths vote of 
 
 both houses of the General Assembly, 
 
 The negotiations went on past Wednesday midnight. 
 
^7 
 
 RLnally, at. 10 a.m. Thursday [June h], an hour before the 
 
 Senate met, Bell and Warren met ahd agreed on the wording of 
 
 the phrase finally adopted. 
 That did it.-""^ 
 The peace-making phrase read; 
 
 Any rule [of court administration] promulgated [by the Supreme 
 
 Court] pursuant to this section may be repealed by vote of the 
 
 General Assembly. 
 
 As the court bill came up for consideration on its second reading, the 
 dramatic tension of the occasion -was heightened by the entry of Senator Davis 
 of Forsyth, •who had risen from a sick bed to speak and vote for the bill. 
 
 The opening presentation of the bill was made by Senator Medford of 
 Haywood, who had been Co-chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on the Courts. 
 Senator Cicero P. Yow of New Hanover submitted an amendment allowing the 
 General Assembly to amend (as well as to reject) rules of court procedure 
 adopted and submitted to it by the Supreme Court, and also to amend or repeal 
 such rules at any session of the General Assembly subsequent to that to 
 which sxibraitted. 
 
 In opposition to this amendment it was argued that it would insure the 
 very division of authority and responsibility which the whole court improve- 
 ment effort was seeking to end. Supporters of the amendment expressed appre- 
 hension over the relinquishment of continuing legislative control over proce- 
 dural rule-making by the Supreme Court, especially since that Court would be 
 the sole inteirpreter of its rules. 
 
 15 
 
 C. A. McKnight, "Compromise Courts Measure Breaks Legislative Log Jam," 
 The Charlotte Observer, June $, 19S9 , p. 1^ col. 5. 
 
28 
 
 Ultimately the Yow amendment lost by a vote of 15 to 27. 
 
 ■While the Yow amendment was pending, Senator Warren offered his amend- 
 ment authorizing the General Assembly to repeal at any time any rule of court 
 administration adopted by the Supreme Court, and stated that if it were 
 adopted he would vote for the bill. Senator Bell acceded to the Warren 
 amendment and it passed without opposition. 
 
 Senator Bell then made the closing plea on behalf of SB 9ii, which passed 
 by a roll-call vote of hO to 7 and went over until the following day for its 
 third reading. 
 
 Constitutional Revision Bill ; 
 Second Reading 
 
 SB 99 came on for consideration the afternoon of June U, immediately 
 after SB 9h had passed its second reading. Senator Currie of Durham was in 
 charge of the billc The Senate committee amendments were adopted without 
 objection. 
 
 One floor amendment of major consequence was offered. Submitted by 
 Senators Wilbur M. Jolly of Franklin and S, Bunn Frink of Brunswick, it had 
 the effect of limiting any one county to a maximum of one Senator. (While 
 no one-county district now has more than one Senator, the senatorial redis- 
 tricting formula in force since 1868 puts no limit on the number of Senators 
 to which such a district may become entitled by the size of its population.) 
 
 No such amendment had been submitted in committee of either house. There 
 had been little advance notice of this amendment and no time for its opponents 
 to organize. That probably made no difference, for once the amendment was 
 offered it is doubtful that any effective opposition could have been made. 
 Many Senators were for the amendment on its merits, although they might not 
 have initiated it under the circumstances. Other Senators, while doubting 
 
."-..lii 
 
2? 
 
 its merits, found themselves und$r the political necessity of voting for it 
 because it would be popular in the smaller counties *)hich they represented. 
 
 It was pointed oUt on the floor that this very orte-senator limitation 
 had been rejected at the polls by a U-to-3 margin in 19^h, and that its 
 adoption would jeopardize the whole new Constitution in the populous Piedmont. 
 Proponents of the amendment were, however, entirely aware of the unpopularity 
 of their proposition among the Piedmont voters, and admitted that its only 
 chance was to tie it to the fortunes of a potentially popular new Constitution 
 in the hope that the desire for court improvement might outweigh objections 
 to the one-senator limitation in the minds of voters in the larger counties. 
 The amendment passed, Uo to 7. 
 
 An amendment was adopted identical with the Warren amendment previously 
 added to SB 9h} mailing rules of court administration adopted by the Supreme 
 Court subject to legislative repeal. 
 
 SB 99 then passed its second roll-call reading U3 to 2 and went over to 
 the following day for third reading. 
 
 Court Bill ; 
 Third Reading 
 
 After adoption of the Jolly-Frink one-senator amendment to the proposed 
 Constitution, legislators primarily interested in the court reform effort 
 publicly expressed the hope that both the proposed Constitution bill (SB 99) 
 and the court bill (£B 9U) would be enacted, thus giving the voters three 
 options: (1) court reform only, (2) constitutional revision including court 
 reform, or (3) no change. 
 
 In the face of strong feeling on the part of several Senators that only 
 one proposition — the revised Constitution — should be put to the voters, it 
 was decided on June 5 that when the court bill came up for third reading 
 
■T^,: 
 
 y 1-' 
 
 4 a^H 
 
 88'^ tl 
 
 ,10 '' 
 
 ■■»» 
 
 '^".•( r) 
 
 Ms . >^- 
 
 »^-;V 
 
 JC 
 
30 
 
 later thai day, it should be postponed until June lO, allowing time to see 
 what action the House of Representatives would take on the proposed Con- 
 stitution. Should the proposed Constitution be defeated in the House, it 
 v.'as understood that the court bill would then be passed by the Senate and 
 sent to the House, 
 
 Constitutional Revision Bill ; 
 Third Reading 
 
 While on third reading on June 5, the proposed Constitution was formally 
 entitled "The Constitution of i960." A substitute for the one-senator amend- 
 ment was submitted by Senators Jolly and Frinlc and adopted, revising their 
 original amendment so that it would not prevent a senatorial district composed 
 of more than one county from having as many as one Senator for each county in 
 the district if the district's population justified it. 
 
 In an effort similar to that which he had made with respect to the court 
 bill, Senator Yow submitted an amendment to SB 99 which would have made the 
 same provision with respect to rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme 
 Court that the Warren amendment had already made with respect to rules of 
 coxirt administration: it would have allowed the repeal of procedural rules 
 by the General Assembly at any time. The Yow amendment lost, 16 to 25. 
 
 SB 99 was then adopted, kh to 0, and sent to the House. 
 
 House Action 
 
 Intermediate Developments 
 
 At the time the proposed Constitution cleared the Senate on Friday, June 5, 
 it was hoped that the House would be able to take it up the following Tuesday, 
 June 9, Therefore when the bill reached the House June 8 it was placed on the 
 
31 
 
 calendar without reference to committee. While £B 9h and SB 99 had been pend- 
 ing in the Senate, the corresponding House bills (HB 198 and HB 226) had been 
 postponed in the House awaiting Senate action. 
 
 During the same time, two resolutions had been introduced which could 
 have served diversionary purposes. HR 1226 (introduced June 3) would have 
 urged the Governor to call a special session of the General Assembly in the 
 fall of 1959 to consider constitutional revision and modification of the 
 court structure. HR 1239, introduced June h, would have authorized the 
 appointment of a nine-member commission to draft legislation (apparently 
 not including constitutional amendments) to effect improvements in the 
 judicial system. Neither resolution emerged from committee. 
 
 Other and more serious complications arose from the pendency of the 
 appropriations and revenue bills, and from the simple desire of many law- 
 makers to go home. On the same day the Senate had finally approved the pro- 
 posed Constitution (June 5), the House had narrowly adopted an amendment to 
 the general appropriations bill (HB 9) granting public school personnel a 
 pay raise totaling .^10,000,000 for the coming biennium — money which the 
 revenue bill did not then provide. Diligent efforts were made over the 
 weekend to insure deletion of this amendment when the appropriations bill 
 came up for third reading in the House on June 9. The prospect of a long 
 and strenuous fight over this matter caused postponement of SB 99 till 
 June 10. 
 
 Then lengthy debate on the revenue bill (HB 12) on June 10 and 11 caused 
 postponement of SB 99 for two more days. Rather than risk the bill in a Friday 
 session when some Representatives would probably be absent, SB 99 'was again 
 carried over, this time to Tuesday, June 16« 
 
32 
 
 Constitutional Reviaion Bill ; 
 Second Reading 
 
 All the while both advocates and proponents were at work. The Governor 
 on June 8 approved the suggestion of a two-proposition ballot> so that ob- 
 jectors to the one-senator limitation might still vote for court improvement. 
 Senator Warren, bespeaking the attitude of probably a majority of the Senators 
 and many Representatives, strongly opposed such a strategy: the voters should 
 vote on the whole new Constitution or nothing, he contended. 
 
 Thus when SB 99 finally reached floor consideration on June 16, its fate 
 was still highly uncertain, despite the Senate's U^-O approval. Seventy-two 
 votes were necessary for passage, but long before the final vote, several 
 dangerous amendments had to be faced. Illness forced Representative A. A, 
 Zollicoffer, Jr., of Vance, Chairman of the House Committee on Constitutional 
 Amendments, to leave the task of managing the bill on the floor to the Vice- 
 Chairman of the Committee, veteran legislator George R. Uzzell of Rowan. 
 
 Article-by-article explanation of the proposed Constitution was made by 
 W» Uzzell and amendments relating to each article were received following 
 its explanation. 
 
 Article I, the Declaration of Rights, drew no amendments. 
 Article II was emended to restore the prohibition against special legis- 
 lation relating to health and sanitation. 
 
 Representative Uzzell then offered an amendment which had the effect of 
 removing from the revised Constitution the one-senator limitation adopted by 
 the Senate and putting it on the ballot as a proposition separate from the 
 rest of the Constitution, If the voters had approved that individual amend- 
 ment, it would have taken effect irrespective of the fate of the proposed 
 Constitution; if they had rejected it, the existing provisions governing Senate 
 redistricting would have remained in force, irrespective of the fate of the 
 proposed Constitution, 
 
33 
 
 After explanation by Mr. Uzzell of his amendment, Representative John 
 Kerr, Jr ,^ of Warren moved to table it (thus cutting off further debate). 
 Legislators pleaded with Mr, Kerr to withdraw his motion and permit full 
 discussion of the Uzzell amendment on its merits, since action on that 
 amendment might well determine the fate of the whole constitutional revision 
 including court reform. He refused • The Uzzell amendment was tabled by a 
 roll-call vote of 67 to UUo 
 
 Approaching the problem from another angle, Representative John P, 
 Kennedy of Mecklenburg submitted an amendment which in effect would have 
 retained the one-senator limitation until 1972, after which time the exist- 
 ing redistricting formula would have again taken effect. 
 
 In the cotirse of debate on this amendment, it was charged that the 
 original one-senator limitation was a device calculated to kill covirt reform 
 at the polls, and the likelihood of its doing so, whatever its motives, was 
 emphasized. The introducer of the one-senator amendment defeated in 1954> 
 Representative H. Clifton Blue of Moore, stated that the people had already 
 spoken decisively on the issue and it should not be resubmitted to them in 
 the same package with the court proposals. The Kennedy amendment soon met 
 its expected defeat. 
 
 An amendment then offered by Representative Hubert Humphrey of Guilford 
 would have put the issue squarely: it would have stricken out the entire 
 one-senator limitation. It failed, 65 to 35» 
 
 One final effort was made to counter the danger posed by the one-senator 
 amendment. Representative D. G. Bell of Carteret submitted an amendment 
 enlarging the House of Representatives from 120 to 130 members, which would 
 have offset with increased House representation part of the losses in poten- 
 tial Senate strength which the larger counties would suffer by the one-senator 
 
34 
 
 amendment. This too was killed. 
 
 In recognition of the fact that legislative sessions are generally 
 getting longer and will likely continue to do so, the maximum permissible 
 pay period for legislators during regular sessions was lengthened from 120 
 to 150 days. A move to increase legislators' pay from t'20 to %25 a day was 
 overwhelmingly defeated, since the proposed Constitution already included 
 a raise from s^l5 to $>20o 
 
 Following a recess for lunch, Article III was presented without any 
 amendment being submitted. 
 
 Representative W. C, Harris, Jr., of Wake, Co-chairman of the Joint Sub- 
 committee on the Courts which had drafted the judicial article of the revised 
 Constitution, took the floor to explain that article. After an introductory 
 statement of the need for revision of the court structure, he began a section- 
 by-section discussion of new Article IV, 
 
 No difficulty was encountered until the question of who should fix the 
 times of regular trial sessions of Superior Court was reached. An amendment 
 submitted by Representative Kerr and adopted 59 to U9 took that power from 
 the Supreme Court and restored it to the General Assembly, It then became 
 clear that the court improvement proposals were in grave peril. 
 
 The provision authorizing the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform 
 method of selecting District Court Judges next came under fire, and an 
 
 It seems worth recording that at no time in committee hearings or in 
 floor debate on SB 99 in the Senate or House of Representatives was objection 
 made to the shift from the General Assembly as a whole to the Speaker of the 
 House of the duty of reapportioning House seats after each census. Yet a bill 
 (HB 139) to reapportion the House of Representatives under the existing Consti- 
 tution was defeated in the House on April 2, 1959, by a vote of 50 to 61. 
 
35 
 
 amendment requiring that those judges be "elected" as provided by law, 
 offered by Representative Roy C. Coat^s of Johnston, was adopted 59 to A9« 
 
 An amendment striking out the provision for appointment of Magistrates 
 by the Chief Justice on nomination of Superior Court Judges and making them 
 elective was sent forward by Representative Byrd I. Satterfield of Person, 
 Warmly challenged and defended, it was tabled by a 62 to 50 vote. A sub- 
 sequent attempt to leave the mode of magistrate selection to legislative 
 determination was voted down# 
 
 An attempt to carry over all existing recorders' courts ae District 
 Courts under the new court system was readily defeated. 
 
 Representative Kerr's amendment to eliminate the authority of the Chief 
 Justice to assign District Judges to temporary duty outside their home 
 districts failed by the close vote of 4.6 to ^^8, 
 
 The final and most critical amendment of the day was then sent up by 
 Representative Kerr, It modified the section on the procedural rule-making 
 power of the Supreme Court to allow the General Assembly to amend such rules 
 at any time. Despite a warning that this change woiild perpetuate the present 
 division of riole-making authority and responsibility between the legislative 
 and judicial branches and doom any hope of procedural improvements, the House 
 
 17 
 
 Mr. Coates' amendment might not in fact have gained his stated objective 
 
 of requiring popular election of all District Judges, N. C, CONSTITUTION, Art, 
 IV, § 30 has since 1876 required that judges of inferior courts be ", . . elected 
 in such manner as the General Assembly may , • , prescribe . . ," — which the 
 State Supreme Court says authorizes selection by any multiple electorate (such 
 as a board of county commissioners) designated by law, and ", . . does not 
 necessarily in^Dort a popular choice by qualified electors . , , ," Meador v. 
 Thomas . 205 N. C. U2, 1^6 (1933 )o 
 
36 
 
 approved the amendment by a wide but unrecorded margin. 
 
 At that point, at 5 Jl2 p.m., Representative Uzzell moved that the House 
 adjourn until the following morning and this was done. It was known that 
 Mr, Kerr and perhaps other members had additional amendments yet to offer, 
 and that given the prevailing temper of the House, they could not be 
 effectively opposed. 
 
 While at that stage the strategy of the House managers of SB 99 for 
 the morrow was by no means firm, some thought was given to pulling the whole 
 judicial article out of the revised Constitution, inserting in its place 
 the present judicial article, and going ahead with revision of all of the 
 rest of the Constitution, thus leaving the way open for a subsequent legis- 
 lative session to concentrate on court changes. 
 
 Overnight conaideration of the matter brought the conclusion, concurred in 
 by the Governor, that it would be better to abandon all efforts at extensive 
 constitutional revision for the session. Without the attraction of the court 
 revision features, the bill would probably not have received the necessary 
 three-fifths vote of both housesj if it had, the more populous counties would 
 very likely have voted down the rest of the new Constitution because of the 
 one-senator limitation. Thus there was little point in further consideration 
 of the bill. 
 
 Therefore when the House resumed consideration of the proposed Consti- 
 tution on Wednesday morning, June 17, Representative Uzzell moved that the 
 bill be postponed indefinitely. It was done. HB 226 (the House version of 
 the constitutional revision bill) was also postponed indefinitely. While 
 discussion of SB 99 in the ffouse never got beyond the mid-point of Article IV 
 and no House vote was ever taken on the merits of the bill as a whole, the 
 
'■■(., 
 
37 
 
 no 
 
 revised Constitution was "deads 
 
 Indefinite postponement of HB 198 (the House version of the court bill) 
 followed as a matter of course. Since the collapse of the proposed Constitu- 
 tion had been caused by opposition to the court article, there would have been 
 no point in considering a bill which dealt only with that article, 
 
 A few minutes later, Senator Bell, with thanks to the Senators and the 
 many others in and out of the le gislature who had shared in the effort to 
 obtain approval of the court amendments, and with the promise to continue 
 the fight for better coiirts, moved the indefinite postponement of SB 94. 
 
 Senator Bell's motion carried without opposition. 
 
 Court reform was finished. 
 
 But only for the session. 
 
 18 
 
 Disposition of the other bills proposing individual amendments to other 
 
 than judicial phases of the Constitution was as follows t SB 307, requiring 
 that the power to classify and exempt property for tax purposes be exercised 
 only by the General Assembly and only on a uniform state-wide basis passed 
 its second reading in the Senate 32 to 13 on June 18, only to be postponed 
 indefinitely when it later became apparent that it could not pass third reading. 
 Its counterpart, HB 736, died in a House Committee. HB 502, requiring appli- 
 cation of 90^ of end-of-the-biennium state surpluses to debt retirement and 
 capital improvements, was not reported by the House Committee on Constitutional 
 Amendments. HB 593 > requiring election of Superior Court Solicitors by the 
 voters of the whole State (rather than by districts) was not reported by the 
 House committee, HB 1183, prohibiting any new diversion of highway funds, 
 received an unfavorable committee report in the House. 
 
38 
 
 The convention of the North Carolina Bar Association the next day voted 
 unanimously to extend the life of their Court Study Committee (which Bell still 
 heads) for two more years and to carry on the campaign for court im- 
 provement, 
 
 A second resolution (HR 13-46) calling for a special legislative session 
 in the fall of 1959 on constitutional and court revision was introduced 
 June 17; but died in a House conmittee. 
 
 Another salvage effort, HR 1357, was adopted by the House on June 18, 
 It would have established a legislative committee to make recommendations 
 on constitutional revision for consideration by the next legislative session, 
 regular or special. Passed by the House, it was sillowed to expire quietly in 
 the Senate Calendar Committee. Some observers saw the 1957-59 Constitutional 
 Commission and its proposals as a factor in the failure of the proposals of 
 the Court Study Committee, and a repetition of that situation was not desiredo 
 
J^ ,'±-.. . 
 
 < : j 
 
39 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 So ended a hard-fought effort, ably led and ably opposed — the culmi- 
 nation of nearly four years of work by the Court Study Committee, over a 
 year of work by the Constitutional Commission, and three months of study, 
 debate, and revision by legislative committees and subcommittees and by the 
 two houses as a whole. 
 
 Comments within and without the legislature indicated that despite this 
 set-back, the cause of judicial reform had suffered only a temporary defeat 
 and that much could be gained from the knowledge of legislative attitudes re- 
 vealed dviring the consideration of court measures by the 1959 General Assembly, 
 And there was clear evidence that the North Carolina Bar Association and many 
 legislators will return to the fray next session, doubly determined to see a 
 court reform program submitted to the people.