|
general election embrace in addition to the
elections held in even numbered years such
an election, which might be held in odd
numbered years?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, that is
not my understanding. What we meant
was that every time there was a congres-
sional election, those offices for which there
had been a vacancy to which someone has
been appointed would then be filled, not the
countywide election.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: If I might turn
to section 3.10 now, dealing with immunity
of legislators, you are smiling, and you
know that I raised privately with you a
question which I have with respect to that
section.
It is my understanding that the language
of the Supreme Court in the recent deci-
sion in the case of the United States v.
Johnson says in effect that this provision,
or the equivalent provision in the Consti-
tution of the United States immunizes the
legislator against criminal prosecution for
a speech for which he is bribed or bribery
to make a speech in the Congress of the
United States.
I wonder if it is the Committee's inten-
tion to so immunize a Maryland legislator
in the future?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, Dele-
gate Marion, it is not, and I thank you for
your courtesy yesterday in raising the point
with me because it was a nice legal point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I will ex-
plain further, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: When the
Maryland Constitution of 1867 provided for
immunity of legislators, it also provided
that it shall be the duty of the General
Assembly at its first session held after the
adoption of this Constitution to provide by
law for the punishment, by fine, or im-
prisonment in the penitentiary, or both,
in the discretion of the court, of any per-
son, who shall bribe, or attempt to bribe,
any executive, or judicial officer of the
State of Maryland, or any member, or
officer, of the General Assembly of the
State of Maryland, or of any municipal
corporation in the State of Maryland, or
any executive officer of such corporation,
in order to influence him in the perform-
ance of any of his official duties; and, also,
|
to provide by law for the punishment, by
fine, or imprisonment in the penitentiary,
or both, in the discretion of the court, of
any of said officers, or members, who shall
demand, or receive any bribe, fee, reward,
or testimonial.
In 1868 the General Assembly did pass
an act providing for fine and imprison-
ment, or both, of members of the General
Assembly who accepted bribes. This act is
now contained in Article 27, section 23, of
the Annotated Code of Maryland, so that
therefore it appears that insofar as the
immunity granted to legislators in Mary-
land is concerned, both the Constitutional
Convention and the General Assemblies
which met following them, at least the 1867
one, did not intend that the immunity
granted should include prosecution of a
member of the General Assembly for
bribery.
Hopefully, Article 27, section 23, will
still be in effect after the passage of this
Constitution, and I would state that it
would be the intention of the Committee
which drafted this language that the im-
munity for legislators would not extend to
provide protection for them if they received
a bribe.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: I suspect with-
out knowing as a matter of certainty, that
the question has never been raised in
Maryland in a bribery prosecution, if there
has ever been one, as to whether or not
the constitutional language prevented it.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You are
correct. Judge Thompson, in the district
court opinion in the Johnson case, listed
Maryland as one of the states which had
a comparable section to Article I, section
6 of the federal Constitution, which is the
Federal counterpart of the immunity sec-
tion, and indicated that there were no cases.
But then Maryland, I think, is probably
one of the few states that saw this prob-
lem and provided by mandate in a com-
parable section of the Constitution that
legislators were to be responsible for ac-
cepting bribes, so that the problem was
anticipated and remedied by the Constitu-
tional Convention of 1867 and the Gen-
eral Assembly which met in 1868.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: I raise the ques-
tion because essentially the same argument
was made by the Solicitor General of the
United States in the Supreme Court be-
cause there is a federal law enacted by the
|
