CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 443

Article I, the Declaration of Rights of the draft Constitution, is
concisely and courageously drawn with imaginative flexibility. I com-
mend those who assisted in the drafting for their care and precision.
However, I would like to make just a few observations about Article 1.

In that respect, I think it most important that Section 1. 02 be
adopted as in the draft, and particularly that the words, "each person
remaining responsible for abuse of those rights, " be retained. We have
recently seen the error of allowing criminal incitement to riot attempt
to hide behind the cherished constitutional right of freedom of ex-
pression. The draft language of Section 1. 03 courageously faces the
truth that the right "not to worship, " alien though it may seem to
us who believe in God, provides the only absolute guarantee that we
will not later be told how and to what degree we must worship. In
my opinion, Section 1. 06, to be totally accurate, should be amended
to read as follows: "Every person shall have the right of trial by jury
of issues of fact in civil proceedings at law in the courts of this State,
where the cause was recognized at common law and where the amount
or value in controversy exceeds such minimum as may be fixed by
statute. " This change is suggested because there are certain admin-
istrative and purely statutory actions at law which did not exist at
common law and for which no jury trial is assured.

I want to particularly commend and emphasize the need for the
extension of the search and seizure protections of Section 1. 08 to cover
the unreasonable interception of communications. The uncontrolled
wiretap and other snooping devices must be outlawed. Reasonable
use of such surveillance is assured under the warrant procedures and
court jurisdiction. The protection against double jeopardy, not
extended to the States by the Federal 14th Amendment, is a progres-
sive addition to our Declaration of Rights. Section 1. 11 wisely leaves
to the Legislature the question of capital punishment.

Article II governs our most precious right as free citizens — the
right to elect those who govern us. In referring to voting age require-
ments, it is my intention to raise a question, not to criticize. I urge
you to join me in serious consideration as to the logic and justice of
retaining the traditional age of twenty-one years as a qualification
for enfranchisement. If a man is old enough to die for his nation at
eighteen, is he not old enough to vote? If a citizen is required to per-
form civic obligations — to pay taxes to and defend his government —
is a responsible government not obligated to guarantee equivalent
rights?

Consistency of logic is a cogent constitutional objective. In Mary-
land, statutory provisions as to legal majority vary, but these are sub-