|
interpreter of the federal Constitution, is
that not true?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, sir, except
it was the First Amendment, not the Sixth.
That is correct.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
suggest it would be a most unfortunate
situation if the Court of Appeals was
bound by its own interpretation which it
placed on the federal Constitution if that
were modified in principle by the Supreme
Court.
In other words, I should think it would
be a very unfortunate situation if the
Supreme Court should have interpreted it
one way and then the Court of Appeals,
based on a former or an erroneous in-
terpretation, should interpret it another
way.
In other words, it seems to me that the
thing should go up or down depending on
which way the Supreme Court decides it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: This is correct,
sir, subject only to what further interpre-
tation or subject to whatever acts the
General Assembly might want to modify
the situation by.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Chairman
Kiefer, I think that many people are in
sympathy with the situation in which you
find yourself in trying to discuss this
church-state matter, because there are
people who have spent a lifetime, and even
the experts do not agree.
Again, without trying to fence in any
way, was it the intention of your Commit-
tee to overrule any Maryland Court of
Appeals case involving matters of church
and state by the determination it has
made?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Well, I do not
know that this Committee ever attempted
to overrule anything the Court of Appeals
did, no.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Gallagher.
|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I asked you
that for this reason. In the last two years
there have been three very significant
church-state cases of which the Mann case
was one. The first was Murray v. Comp-
troller which held that the Maryland ex-
emption granted to churches and houses of
worship and parsonages was not unconsti-
tutional either under the Maryland Consti-
tution or the federal Constitution. That was
the unanimous decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The next case in sequence was Horace
Mann, which held that Notre Dame Col-
lege, St. Joseph's at Emmitsburg, and
Western Maryland College were so sec-
tarian that under their interpretation of
the First Amendment it violated the "no
establishment clause" under criteria which
it set up, as you pointed out.
The third case was the Truitt v. Tawes
case which said that even though a hospital
may be sponsored by a religious organiza-
tion, the State in granting loans to it did
not violate either the Maryland Constitu-
tion or the religion clauses of the First
Amendment because of the public purpose
it serves, as you pointed out, despite the
fact there were chapels in the hospital, and
there was in effect a house of worship.
Prior to that time, of course, there were
two Maryland Court of Appeals cases in-
volving school bus transportation, the St.
Mary's County case and the Baltimore
County case.
Now, I would presume that, in taking
the position that you identify as your Com-
mittee's rationale, that it wants to effectu-
ate the separation of church and state as
was done in the Horace Mann case, you
have not attempted to overrule any of the
prior church-state cases or the subsequent
church-state cases.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I think this is
correct.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I have one
further question. You have quoted from
Everson, and you have selected a certain
paragraph.
Would the Committee, and did the Com-
mittee intend to take the complete text of
the majority opinion of Everson, from
which you have quoted, and holding as a
principle consistent with the separation of
church and state?
|
