|
The legislature has not been unmindful of
this problem. It has made a very good at-
tempt to tackle the problem, and when I
say this, I say to you that what we are
doing here is not putting heart and soul
in the constitution. I think we are putting
meaningless phrases and hot air in it.
There is no way that I can conceive of,
that anyone could oppose the concept of
this provision or of any way you could
oppose any other concept.
We want to protect the consumer. But I
say to you the policing that is implicit in
this suggestion is beyond anyone's compre-
hension; it is an utterly impossible thing to
implement. I say to you that as you get
back into your history and into the days
of Esau and Jacob, where Esau was seen
to be a notorious consumer, regardless of
how you handle this problem or whether
that law had been on the books then or
whether it will ever go on the books, no one
can protect a consumer against himself;
and that is what this pretends to do. That
is what I think we are holding out, the
most indecent hopes to people that we can-
not fulfill, and we cannot hope to fulfill,
and for that reason, I shall vote against
this proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate L. Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I rise in sup-
port of this particular constitutional pro-
posal, mainly because in 1933 President
Roosevelt decided to make some reforms to
protect consumers at that time.
In 1933 the Securities and Exchange
Commission was established because so
many investors were being defrauded and
victimized because of the policies of that
day. During that time Mr. Roosevelt was
president. He said the buyer should be pro-
tected, and at that time, in 1933, an act
was passed to provide that people would be
protected if stock brokers did not give ac-
curate information to investors. At the
present time we find that the small con-
sumer is not protected in the State of
Maryland. We find that he needs protec-
tion, and of course, this particular con-
stitutional proposal would give a mandate
to the General Assembly.
We have certain laws passed by the Gen-
eral Assembly, but at the present time we
still find that many important and well-
to-do people are unprotected. I feel this
will be one way of saying to the public that
we feel it is not enough to ask the General
Assembly to protect the interests of Mary-
land citizens. I feel that it should be
stated constitutionally. This is why I rise
|
in support of this particular constitutional
proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I will be
brief, Mr. Chairman.
This is not a mandate. The Chairman of
the Committee himself says that whether
there is need for protection is a matter of
legislative discretion. If they decide there
is no need for discretion he concedes that
there will be no need for action.
Consequently, by the admission of the
Chairman himself, this provision does abso-
lutely nothing.
I suggest that we want a constitution
that we will be proud of, that will live
through the ages. This is the kind of pro-
vision that should be omitted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of this provision.
I share the doubts with him here as to
the inherent validity, the inherent power of
this provision, but I think it would be an
overstatement to say that it will have no
impact and no effect whatsoever. I think
first it would focus attention of the entire
State of Maryland, not only as a result of
this colloquy today, but in the course of
the actual consideration of the document
as we go to the people for its ratification,
and also it would focus the attention of
the General Assembly on this subject mat-
ter once again, and indicate to them what
this cross-section of the State feels about
this particular provision.
It can do no harm, and it might very
well do some good. I would suggest to you
that perhaps we are taking on the role of
a lobbyist; but I am content to lobby for
consumers, and therefore I shall support
this provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
(There was no response.)
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor?
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to speak in favor of the pro-
posal.
Last Wednesday I talked about the im-
portance of consumer protection. Today
|
