|
last sentence. We spoke to the people who
had proposed this as an amendment. It had
been added to the article on the floor. When
we talked to the sponsors of it, it was
made clear that the words "prescribed by
law" would mean by public general law
unless it was one of the exceptions made
in the section on the general application
of the law.
You may have noted, those of you who
had the chance last night to do some read-
ing after you got home, that we finally
have that much referred to section 7.0G
under "general application of the laws"
which was originally in local government,
and is now in fact in the legislative sec-
tion, as we have said it would be, and it is,
I believe, section 3.23.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Are
there any questions? The Chair recognizes
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Chairman Penni-
man, can you tell me whether on page 5 in
line 20 the pronoun "their" has as its ante-
cedent not only "any unit of local govern-
ment", but also "state", in the two or three
lines above it? Is it intended that that
phrase modify both "local units of govern-
ment" and "state"?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Since we are
on page 5, on line 9, on the "limitations on
holding office," does the phrase "laws of
this State" include the laws of all bodies
of the State, the General Assembly, mu-
nicipalities?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That is
correct.
DELEGATE WILLONER: In section
1.05, the change made "and to be secure
against unreasonable" on line 28 was in-
tended, I assume, not to be a change in
substance, but I understand that the mover
of this amendment, who is not at the ros-
trum at this point, considers that it is a
change of substance.
Is that correct, Mr. Pennhnan?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That is my
understanding of it. At the point at which
he moved it in the Committee he did not
think of it as a change in substance but
— and I am most hesitant to speak for the
Chairman — assumed that it was the in-
tention of the Committee, and that this
was clear from the discussion on the floor.
|
I think in later conversations with you he
agreed that he may have been wrong in
that assumption.
DELEGATE WILLONER: The state-
ment as to section 1.14 in your Committee
Report is incorrect, is it not?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: It is incor-
rect. It fails to say anything other than
that it struck those lines and seems to say
they were superfluous, but that was not
the intention at all. They have been re-
combined and will ultimately be returned
to the section on personal rights. At the
moment they are in the Report No. S&D-17
as the last item on page 3.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Do
you have any further questions?
DELEGATE WILLONER: In section
1.13 where it now says that "the jury shall
consist of not less than twelve", this was
not changed because it was thought that it
might be a change in substance in that
"not less than" might mean more than
twelve, but there will be an amendment to
straighten that out. Is that correct, a style
amendment?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes, that is
my understanding.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Thank you.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Marvin Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. President,
I call Delegate Penniman's attention to
page 3, section 1.12. In line 41 you have
inserted "an obligation created by". Now,
I would like to know to what this refers?
Does it refer to an obligation in terms of
alimony or support, or would this be some
independent obligation created by decree?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: It would be
the obligation growing out of a failure to
pay as a result of a valid decree or agree-
ment approved by decree, and it would then
go down to the failure to pay support for
wife or dependent children or illegitimate
children on alimony, all of the items that
are listed.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: But only that?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Only that,
that is correct.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Pen-
niman, with respect to section 1.08, line 12,
where you use the word "party", that
means either the State or a defendant?
|
