|
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further
[uestions?
(There was no response.)
If not, while Delegate Mitchell returns
o her Chair to begin the debate the Chair
vould like to recognize the presence in the
gallery of the Honorable W. Hughes Brock-
>ank, Chairman of the Finance Committee
>f the State Senate of Utah, accompanied
>y Dr. Carl Snow, Legislative Analyst, of
he Legislature of Utah.
Delighted to have them here. (Applause.)
There is a period of controlled debate,
ifteen minutes controlled by Delegate
Mitchell, fifteen by Delegate Hardwicke.
For what purpose does Delegate Pullen
•ise?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Personal privi-
ege, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to offer a welcome to my
.ornier colleague and friend, a former state
superintendent of public instruction, Mr.
Voung.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delighted to have
lim. (Applause.)
This will be Amendment No. 3, the
amendment distributed to you and marked
D. The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 3
o accompany Minority Report R&P-1(D)
oy Delegates Bennett, Bothe, Burgess,
Hardwicke, Mitchell, L. Taylor, Willoner:
On page 2, section 3, Right to Due
Process and Equal Protection, in line 31
after the word "laws" add the following
words: "nor be subject to discrimination
by the State because of race, color, religion,
or national origin."
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: I would like,
Mr. President, to yield two minutes to
Delegate Adkins.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell,
( please.
Will you call on someone else, Delegate
; Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: I yield four
j minutes to Delegate Wagandt.
j DELEGATE WAGANDT: Thank you.
I THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
I
|
DELEGATE WAGANDT: Mr. Chair-
man, in the commentary of R&P-1 the ma-
jority's position seems to suggest that the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th
Amendment can play the major roll in re-
solving the problems of discrimination.
True, the Court has been expanding the
view of civil and political rights, but I do
raise this question : How do we know what
position the court will take in the future
decades under the equal protection clause
of the 14th Amendment?
How can we be sure that the court will
continue its local interpretation?
I remind you that there was a 14th
Amendment when the Supreme Court
struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
There was a 14th Amendment when the
Supreme Court enunciated its separate but
equal doctrine, and there was a 14th
Amendment when thousands of American
citizens were sent to concentration camps
in the 1940's solely because of their na-
tional origin.
Therefore, I suggest that we cannot and
should not rely solely on the Supreme
Court to bear the burden of the questions
for equal justice; nor can we remain
silent in this constitution, for as Delegate
Kiefer has already stated last week, we
have a duty to posterity to provide a
timeless Declaration of Rights.
Certainly we would be remiss not to ad-
dress ourselves to a centuries-old problem
that has caused Marylanders more anguish
than any other problem it has ever con-
fronted. Justice has followed a very ir-
regular road in this State.
I think that a very brief look at our his-
tory will show the erratic course of reform
that underscores the need to take some
sort of positive statement. Under the Con-
stitution of 1776, a Negro who fulfilled the
same qualifications as a white man could
vote and late in the next decade, one of
the world's first anti-slavery associations
was organized here in Maryland. But un-
fortunately the trend of reform soon swung
in the other direction, so that by the year
1860 there was serious discussion within
this State on the process of expelling free
Negroes and re-enslaving them, and in
1860 the General Assembly of this State
enacted a law that forbade a slave owner
from freeing a slave, even if he so desired.
Now, during the Civil War, the pendu-
lum swung the other way, so that through
the Constitution of 1864 the State of Mary-
land became the first border state within
|
