|
of his right to due process under the
Declaration of Rights?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct, sir. We do not anticipate any al-
lowance of invasion of personal freedoms
or rights as a result of this particular
section. This goes to the procedure for the
operation of government as a process and
to the filling of governmental offices.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
Delegate Lloyd Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Delegate
Gallagher, in reference to your last two
words, "governmental operations", what do
you mean by that, exactly, "governmental
operations"?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: We mean
the ordinary day-to-day conduct of gov-
ernment.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Do you mean,
say, the police operation, or operation of
the police department? Would that be
included?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, that
would be a part of governmental operations.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Well, sup-
pose you had an emergency in, say, Cam-
bridge or Baltimore City where you had a
riot situation and you had a large number
of arrests, and of course the police could
not abide by the writ of habeas corpus due
to the fact that they have maybe four
thousand people arrested, and of course
they could not take care of their duties and
responsibilities in terms of letting people
out of jail.
This particular incident occurred in De-
troit where a number of people were ar-
rested, and they could not obtain food or
get out of jail.
Would this particular section cover a
situation like that?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: First of
all, let me say that nothing here is in-
tended to conflict with or detract from the
right of the governor to use the militia
under the appropriate circumstances.
Secondly, I should say that this consti-
tutional provision requires that the General
Assembly take further action and set up
specific modes of procedure in the event
that such an emergency does take place.
In and of itself, section 3.19 does nothing
other than to allow the General Assembly
|
to pass legislation anticipating a disaster
or an emergency. Consequently, the ques-
tions which you address to me would seem
more properly to be considered by the
legislature itself when it acts to implement
3.19. I do not see that this section would
give rise to some of the fears which you
express.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lloyd
Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: What I am
trying to say is this would seem to conflict
with the personal rights proposal on writ
of habeas corpus mentioned in the con-
stitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: To the ex-
tent I can, I say quite definitely and em-
phatically it is not the intention of the
Committee that this be the vehicle for the
suspension of any personal rights guaran-
teed in the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lloyd
Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: If the Gen-
eral Assembly can provide for temporary
suspension of the continuity of state and
local public offices and government opera-
tions, would this not in effect many times
work to the suspension of certain personal
rights?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: This does
not authorize the General Assembly to sus-
pend the operation of governmental opera-
tions or government offices. This allows
them to come in and fill the gap, to keep
the offices occupied and keep the govern-
ment operating.
Consequently, it seems to me that this
would assist in orderly government rather
than detract from it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lloyd
Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: This is what
I was trying to find out. Thank you.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: This is not
an authorization to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Section 4 of
R&P-2 provided that no power of suspen-
sion of the laws would be allowed, and that
section was taken out of the constitution
|
