|
and then adjourn and not return this eve-
ning, except for the two committees
mentioned.
Are there any questions?
Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, is
it not true that in relation to the sections
now under consideration we have to go
back to R&P-1 and that there is a Minority
Report on part of R&P-1 that we still have
to consider as part of R&P-2?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe it
would be possible to conclude consideration
of the portion of R&P-2 that was to have
been R&P-1 this evening. That would have
to, under this scheduling, go over until to-
morrow morning. We could do it only by
coming back this evening. This means that
we would have to move pretty briskly this
evening and tomorrow morning to handle
that schedule, and dispose of the other rec-
ommendations of the General Provisions
Committee.
Are there any other questions?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. We will
resume debate on Amendment No. 17.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I want to
briefly support the amendment. Judge Hen-
derson stated the case in very compelling
fashion. I think the Convention today has
shown wisdom in eliminating from the Con-
stitution provisions that are either archaic,
restrictive, or unnecessary. Conversely, I
see no reason to add to the Constitution a
provision which is unnecessary, and one
that has never reflected the system observed
in Maryland. This system, as Judge Hen-
derson indicated, has worked very well, and
it is in no danger of being overturned by
the General Assembly.
I urge that you support his amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen, I consider
Judge Henderson's purpose highly laudable.
But, I tell you, I am opposed to the amend-
ment for these reasons only.
I think we have come too fast. I have
been running down the law when I should
have been listening to the Chairman telling
us when and where we go in the next few
days, and this is what I find:
The Constitution as we have at the pres-
ent time has this reference to the indict-
|
ment in Article IV, section 13: "All indict-
ments shall conclude, 'against the peace,
government, and dignity of the State.' "
which implicitly means that you cannot
have an indictment if you do not have a
grand jury.
Now, if you bodily take out this whole
section referring to indictments, you then
must fall back on the rule of the court.
The rule of court in 7.08 and 7.09 quite
clearly tells you what you can do with
respect to indictments and to information.
But if the time should arise when the
judges of the Court of Appeals decide, as
they would then have the power to decide,
that there need not be indictments but
that we could allow everything, including
the kind of situation that would develop
through some form of information, I think
through the back door we have destroyed
the grand jury system.
I do not know that exactly what I am
saying to you is all that is involved, but I
am completely frustrated that we do not
have the kind of research material in con-
nection with this that would let us know
that if by taking this section out, we are
destroying the grand jury system. If we
are destroying the grand jury system, I
am opposed to the amendment. But if we
could have the kind of assurances that we
ought to have, that all we are doing is sim-
plifying the picture as it is going to be,
then I think we can take a second look.
But I would not be in favor of this amend-
ment at this time, under these circum-
stances, until we have got a lot more of
the law, the background, and the possibili-
ties that may result from stripping the
Constitution of all reference to indictments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 17 to Committee Recom-
mendation R&P-2.
Amendment No. 17 is to delete all of
section 11 on page 3. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the amendment to delete. A
vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
|
