|
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will ring
the quorum bell.
Are there any further questions of the
committee spokesman?
The Chair hears none.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: In re-
gard to section 13 which is imprisonment
for debt, the recommendation is identical
language with Article III, section 38 of our
present Constitution. That goes back a
long way. England under the old law there
could imprison people for debt.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you pause just
a moment?
The absence of a quorum has been sug-
gested, roll call.
(Whereupon, a roll call was taken.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has every delegate
answered roll call?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the roll call.
The Committee of the Whole will con-
tinue in session, there being a quorum
present.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: As you
recall the Colony of Georgia was founded
by debtors and it has been carried in our
Constitution since 1851 as a prohibition for
putting people in jail or confinement be-
cause of debt.
In 1950 and 1962, there were amend-
ments placed on that which provided, and
it now reads:
"No person shall be imprisoned for
debt, but a valid decree of a court of
competent jurisdiction or agreement
approved by the decree of that court
for support of a wife or dependent
children or for support of illegitimate
child or children or for alimony shall
not constitute debt within the meaning
of this section."
That was on the theory that if they did
not comply with a court order to support
minor children and wives that there they
were not strictly speaking being confined
for a debt.
They were being confined for a contempt
of the court and for a failure to abide by
a court order to comply with their duty to
society, and this provision that we have
given you is the identical language of Ar-
ticle III, section 38 of our present Con-
stitution, and we feel should be carried
over.
|
Now, there have been decisions of the
Maryland Court of Appeals that held that
without legislation or without constitu-
tional provision, that they could not im-
prison persons for contempt of court, for
failure to pay alimony in support of chil-
dren.
For that reason, I imagine that this pro-
vision was presented to the people in 1950
and again in 1962 and it is of rather recent
origin and has been recently approved by
the people.
Now if you would want to delete this,
then you would have to make certain that
transitory provisions were written which
gave the right to imprison for a man's
failure to comply with his duty to society,
namely, to support his wife and children.
Are there any questions on that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions?
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Delegate Weide-
meyer, did you all consider the problem of
imprisonment for non-support of an indi-
gent parent?
I think that that is an imprisonable
offense.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No, we
did not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
(There was no response.)
The Chair hears none.
Thank you, Delegate Weidemeyer.
Section 11 is open for amendment.
Are there any amendments?
The Chair has no amendments.
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
there is one being prepared by Delegate
Marion and myself, et al.
In fact, I think there are two.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the state of
them, do you know?
DELEGATE BYRNES: They are now
being prepared, physically.
THE CHAIRMAN: They have been pre-
pared and being printed or just being writ-
ten?
DELEGATE BYRNES: They just were
presented to Mr. Benson.
|
