|
education, we will see that the public school
system started because the people wanted
their children to be familiar with the Bible.
Then as soon as vast numbers of immi-
grants began to arrive, there came quickly
the feeling that this was wrong to use the
public school system as a means of evan-
gelism.
The Roman Catholics objected because
the public school would use the King James
version, and the King James Bible does
not contain the apocrypha.
The Jewish people objected because the
New Testament was read, something with
which they did not agree. The Supreme
Court has therefore in the past years
proved so consistently opposed to private
and parochial schools that the Supreme
Court felt this was the strongest language
we could use.
I oppose the amendment because I be-
lieve what we have here will best serve to
strengthen the public school system. I am
in favor of the public school system and so
was the Committee, and this wording of
theirs reflects that concern.
The Committee and I were concerned
and this language reflects our concern,
that if we were to undermine the basic
establishment of church-state separation,
this would seriously threaten the public
school system and just reverse the present
good relationships that are existing be-
tween all religious groups in this country.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has ex-
pired.
DELEGATE GROH: Thank you. I plead
then for the support of the language of
the Committee, the First Amendment lan-
guage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. —
DELEGATE BENNETT: I wish to
withdraw the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Are there any further amendments to
section 2?
(There was no response.)
The Chair hears none.
There are some amendments to section 3.
There is also a minority report with respect
|
to section 3, a minority report by Delegate
Mitchell.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Mitchell
to present the minority report.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. President
and fellow delegates, this minority report
is submitted by Delegates Bennett, Bothe,
Burgess, Hardwicke, Taylor and Willoner.
We have agreed to the amendment of the
minority report language which we origi-
nally suggested in R&P-1(D), which was
identical to the Commission draft.
The Commission draft reads "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law or be denied the
equal protection of the laws or be subject
to discrimination by law or other govern-
mental action because of race, color, reli-
gion or national origin."
The Commission draft then proposed to
add an anti-discrimination clause to the
14th Amendment language because we
found upon questioning some of the Com-
mission members that there is some con-
fusion as to what governmental action
means. We felt that it would be wisest to
substitute for the words on line 14 or rather
the words "by law or other governmental
action", "by the state", the words "by the
state", because that language carries with
it a long line of decisions interpreting what
is state action, and we felt for our purposes
in Maryland, and the purposes of the courts
and the General Assembly which interprets
and implements the Constitutional provi-
sions, that this would be wisest.
Mr. President, that is Amendment P,
and I would like to have it distributed at
this time so that the delegates might look
at it as we discuss it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the pages dis-
tribute amendment P?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: It is in lieu of
D.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going
to offer amendment D?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed,
Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: The suggested
language by the minority report would read
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
|
