|
I do not like taking something out if we
do not know exactly what we are doing.
I do not want to be imprisoned for debt in
this State, and I would object to the Com-
mittee agreeing this be removed.
It seems to me that that was the prob-
lem we had when we discussed it in the
Committee. As far as we are concerned,
the legislature could imprison for debt, at
least that is the way it was in the Commit-
tee, unless it was left in there.
We did something earlier today when we
took out a right. Now I am finding out we
may have permitted the judges to direct
verdicts of guilty. I do not know if that
is true or not. Surely if we take this out
we do not know what we are doing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate M. Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Is it in order
to speak against the amendment, Mr.
Chairman?
DELEGATE M. SMITH: I certainly op-
pose this amendment. Now, we felt it neces-
sary here to state that no bill of attainder
or ex post facto law shall be enacted. We
felt it necessary there to say that there
shall be no conviction of crime that shall
work corruption of blood or harm to the
State. I for one am not going to take away
the prohibition against imprisonment for
debt.
Now, I think I am correct in saying that
there is at least one of the states at the
present time, New Hampshire, at least it
was in the news some 20 or 25 years ago,
which permits imprisonment for debt. I
take cognizance of the fact that there are
people right today who would be very
happy to put bills through the General As-
sembly providing for imprisonment for
debt; and I think that this is a matter that
should remain in our Bill of Rights.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Lloyd Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I have a
point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to address this either to the Chair or
to Mr. Scanlan.
In Baltimore City some fellows are
brought into court and ordered to pay on
a non-support order to their children and
wife. Many times some of these men are
unemployed and therefore cannot comply
with the court order, and in lieu of this
the Department of Public Welfare pays the
amount of money to the family of the man
who has been brought into court.
|
Would this change the interpretation that
Delegate Scanlan made concerning this par-
ticular section 13? Would this be consid-
ered a debt, say, if the man who was
brought into court was willing to pay the
Welfare Department back?
In other words, when the man returns
to work, the probation department orders
the particular person to pay the Welfare
Department back; and also to continue
support payments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you understand
the question, Delegate Scanlan?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I think I do.
I do not think the deletion of the provi-
sion would in any way change the condi-
tional right or prerogative to imprison
fathers who do not support their children
pursuant to court order.
In other words, you are talking about
contempt of court, which is permissible
under the present Constitution and would
remain permissable even if the prohibition
against imprisonment for debt is removed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Many fathers
are unemployed. They do not have money
to pay the court order, so in lieu of that,
the Welfare Department makes the pay-
ments, and then this is considered against
their particular amount of money they owe
to their family, and they have to pay the
Welfare Department back.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Their obliga-
tion to the Welfare Department is a debt
for which they could not be imprisoned
now, and certainly regarded as highly un-
likely that the General Assembly would
ever pass legislation which would imprison
a man for failure to pay back to the Wel-
fare Department what he owes it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman, I
would certainly hate to see the constitu-
tional protection against imprisonment for
debt removed.
There are many, many practitioners who
love to see debtors put in jail, and many
debtors think they are going to jail if they
do not pay. The legislature would be under
terrific pressure to enact a bill allowing
imprisonment for debt. I think that we
should not allow such a constitutional
prohibition to be removed when we have
had it. It has been healthy. It has been
|
