|
court to test these bond issues — not these
bond issues, but these gifts in the budget
for four of our colleges, on the grounds that
the gifts to these colleges were in aid of
religion.
Almost at the same time but just a little
bit behind it was a case which was filed by
a taxpayer to test whether or not the State
could give its help and assistance to hos-
pitals which obviously had some religious
identification.
In the case involving the gifts of the
Horace Mann case, as we now call it, there
was the most intense, competent, and com-
plete exploration of whether or not these
colleges could be treated in such a way as
to identify the gifts to them as for a public
purpose and not in any way in contraven-
tion of the law as set out by either the
First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, or whether it was in contra-
vention of anything in the Maryland Con-
stitution.
When these cases reached the Court of
Appeals, in one of the lengthiest opinions
that you will find, you can almost gauge it
by physical weight, the Court went into
every detail with relation to each of these
institutions. It reached the conclusion that
three of them were of such a nature that
the basic purpose was of such a nature as
to bring them within the framework and
atmosphere of such religious identification
as to contravene the constitutional pro-
hibition. As to one, they ruled yes it was
proper and the gift was legal and valid
and the money could be turned over because
while there was some slight reference in its
origin and in its management perhaps to
some religious reference, it was not reli-
gion-dominated, it was not religion-con-
trolled and was free from any of the things
that the law and the Constitution pro-
hibited. When this case was decided by the
Court of Appeals, it made perfectly clear
that in Maryland the situation now gave
us a complete open channel, that if we
followed this decision at least we would
have the guidelines and the beacon light
all set out for us. This case was appealed
in the non-technical sense to the Supreme
Court. By that I mean an effort was made
to take the case to the U. S. Supreme
Court but they declined to hear it and in
effect this ratifies the decision of the Court
of Appeals. It was held then this was for
what we call a public purpose.
Now, with reference to the hospitals, one
of them without question had a religious
identification, but this applied not to the
people who were being benefited but to its
|
management and in some respects to its
board. As to the others, not even this kind
of a tenuous relationship was found to
exist. But the Court of Appeals said that
it was and it surely is a nonsectarian hos-
pital. Nobody bothered to ask the patient
what was his religion, nobody attempted to
proselytize him or her to convert or to
change. Its sole object was to get him or
her well as quickly as possible. There the
Court of Appeals properly had no trouble;
there was no problem.
I could go over with you case after case
and bewilder you just as I would be be-
wildered in giving- you the nuances, the
ramifications and the changes in thinking
over the years. But there is this word of
art. A public purpose means that it is not
for private benefit but in its broadest sense
is a purpose benefiting the people of the
State of Maryland.
How this will change over the next fifty
or a hundred years none of us knows, but
as I think I said once before, the common
law has changed with the changing times,
the U. S. Constitution has changed in its
interpretations of the same words with the
changing times. Our courts change the
meaning's with the changing times. This is
a concept which we believe is proper and
technically we say, "Please accept it as it
appears here because it is right and it is
proper".
The prohibition that used to exist as to
gifts creates a different problem. But is it
really different? If you will look at section
6.02, it says assets or credit of the State
shall not be given or loaned to any in-
dividual, association, or corporation unless
a public purpose will be served thereby and
unless authorized by an act of the General
Assembly stating the public purpose.
A gift of assets may be authorized by
the affirmative vote of a majority of all of
the members of each house. But a gift of
credit or a loan of credit or a loan of
assets shall require the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the members.
Now, you ask why. When you talk about
a gift of assets, this is a one-time item.
Assets means cash. If the State chooses to
give in the budget $500,000 to Johns Hop-
kins University or to the hospital for a
specific purpose which is a public purpose
and is proper, this is given through the
budget. It would be impractical and in-
volve the legislature in an almost impos-
sible practical situation to take a part of
the budget, since this is a one-time thing,
and say this part shall have this kind of a
vote, the other part shall have a different
|
