|
or property without due process of law or
be denied the equal protection of the laws
or be subject to discrimination by the state
because of race, color, religion or national
origin."
I am sure that most of us are familiar
with the commentary which accompanied
the draft language. The Commission mem-
bers felt that discrimination was such a
serious problem, both within the State and
nationally, that there ought to be a com-
mitment by the State to .the prohibition
against discrimination on account of race,
color, religion and national origin in the
constitution.
Working here in the Constitutional Con-
vention, we are not operating in a social
vacuum. We believe that the declaration of
rights for this State must be written in
recognition of the social struggles of this
period in our history. To set principles for
the guidance of the government in its
protection of the peoples' rights to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we
believe that in addition to the 14th amend-
ment language, this state constitution
should contain an express declaration of
the commitment by the State of Maryland
to the prohibition against discrimination on
account of race, religion, and national origin.
In 1947, President Truman's Civil Rights
Commission in a historic report to secure
these rights stated that leadership by the
federal government in safeguarding civil
rights does not mean exclusive action by
that government. There is much that the
states and the local governments alone can
do in this field. In certain areas, they must
do far more than parallel federal action.
For constitutional reasons and for admin-
istrative reasons protection of its citizens'
rights must remain the primary duty of
the state.
As I have talked with the delegates in
the Convention, I understand anew the
tragedy of racial segregation and isolation
in this country. There are many men and
women of good will in this State, but they
do not understand the seriousness of this
problem, the extent to which it is en-
trenched, nor the damaging effects which
affect both the dominant majority and the
oppressed minority.
Our present governor has given con-
structive leadership in this area, and our
former governor who sits as a delegate to
this Convention also gave leadership in
1063 in the State's first drive to secure
a state-wide public accommodations law,
and the fair employment practices laws
which were enacted. A few days ago in
|
Maryland's largest city, a young mayor
conscious of the effects of racial isolation
and discrimination upon the white citizens
as well as upon the colored citizens made
an inaugural pledge to end racial discrimi-
nation in the city's facilities and in its
actions.
Many of us who are minority members
in this State have been encouraged and
cnheartened by the activities in both Prince
George's and Montgomery Counties as they
have enacted fair housing ordinances. The
City of Annapolis on the eve of our Con-
vention and shortly thereafter gave us an-
other encouraging example of leadership
in the State by its enactment of a fair
housing ordinance. Those of us who have
long been concerned by the deficiencies in
the administration of justice in the criminal
area caused by racial discrimination are
encouraged by the activities of the white
citizens of Montgomery County in the
long struggle for justice in the Giles Broth-
ers case. All over this State, in human rela-
tions commissions and in county councils,
decent, fair-thinking citizens of good will
of both races are sitting down together to
work on this common problem.
This is not the Negro problem, but is
Maryland's problem because it affects us
both alike. And therefore we feel that this
anti-discrimination language is important
both for the guidance of our courts and for
the guidance of the General Assembly as
we hopefully move to a future of progress.
Now, some say that the anti-discrimina-
tion clause is redundant and that the equal
protection clause embraces the prohibition.
As the Majority Report puts it, because of
recent Supreme Court decisions, the equal
protection clause may provide broader pro-
tection against state-sponsored, state-in-
spired discrimination.
We reply that the 14th Amendment to
the federal Constitution should not be the
sole reliance of his State for protecting
human rights. In 1867 when the Constitu-
tional Convention met here in Annapolis,
slavery had already been abolished. But in
Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights of
our present Constitution there is the com-
mitment of this State that slavery shall
not be reestablished. Certainly in 1067, in
spite of the movement in the courts and in
the federal Congress, this Convention must
enact a similar commitment for the pro-
tection of the human rights of the Negro
citizens of this State.
We must remember what has been pointed
out in prior debate. Although the 14th
Amendment was passed by Congress on
|
