|
DELEGATE BOTHE: I am speaking
now of the constitutional law and I wonder
if you would answer the question, looking
only to the ideal execution of the laws as
set forth in their basic document, along
with as it may be practiced in various parts
of the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think you
can limit the delegate's answer to a ques-
tion.
Delegate Grant, you may answer the
question.
DELEGATE GRANT: In the present
state of Maryland law there is an unques-
tioned right to bail any time you can get
the magistrate to come down to set the
bail. The present state of the Maryland
practice is that there is a good deal of
common sense used as to when the magis-
trate is going to be available to set bail.
This would bring what has grown up to be
subversion of the law, in consonance with
the law and instead of operating through
the back door the judge could operate
through the front door.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Would then a
court be able to determine that an individ-
ual's activity, while perhaps not criminal
or dangerous, were nevertheless a dis-
turbance to the public peace, and for that
reason restrain him for whatever period
the court could justify holding him pending
trial on some offense of which he was
accused?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, you
have left time enough only to answer that
question.
DELEGATE GRANT: I point out to
Delegate Bothe first of all that this Ehvood
v. Ocean City case dealt with that point,
and secondly that breach of the peace is a
recognized criminal offense.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
because Delegate Child led the opposition
in striking out this section and because of
his interest in this I am going to yield to
him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I
do not think we ought to prolong this
matter any further. The amendment of-
fered by Delegate Grant does not change
the concept to any great extent.
|
The provision which we have later on
in the constitution under section 8, which
is the thrust of my entire argument, per-
mits the legislature to pass, and they have
already passed, any lalw in reference to
the granting of bail which is necessary and
proper.
The granting of bail, you can write stat-
utes about, you can write words about, but
in the final analysis it is a matter of
sound judicial discretion by some judicial
officer when application is made to him for
bail.
There is no need whatsoever for section
5 (b) in the constitution. The original lan-
guage of section 5 (b) developed here this
morning was taken from, as I understand
it now, the language of the federal statute,
or an improvisation of the words in that
statute, so the words are statutory. The
arguments have all been made; the mi-
nority report was supported by nine mem-
bers of the Committee, and, therefore, rep-
resents the majority of the Committee, and
is really a majority report.
I urge the defeat of the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the Amend-
ment?
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in opposition?
(There wo-s no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I rise to speak
against the amendment, but not for rea-
sons consistent with Judge Child's. A long
time ago a gentleman by the name of Oscar
Wilde wrote a poem about lying in jail.
Among other things it says, we know not
whether the laws are right or whether the
laws are wrong. All that we know lying in
jail is that the days are long, and that
each day is like an hour, an hour in which
the minutes are long.
The purpose of bail now, tomorrow, and
yesterday was to allow a man under our
system of jurisprudence who has not been
found guilty to go free until he is found
guilty.
Delegate Grant said there were a couple
of considerations about whether or not a
man ought to be able to go free on bail.
One had to do with the finding of guilt, and
we did not reach it until a later date. The
|
