|
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I would
like to ask Delegate Dulany a question, as
to why he has used the word "spouse" in-
stead of the word "wife".
THE PRESIDENT: He has not used
any of these words. He has used only the
word "dependent". He has stricken all the
other words. The amendment is modified;
you perhaps did not understand. Let me
give you the proposed new modification of
the amendment.
Delegate Dulany, I think it might be
simpler to rewrite the amendment. May I
state it in this manner: Amend section
1.12 by inserting after the word "obliga-
tion" in line 41 the words "for the support
of a dependent or for alimony" and strike
out all of lines 44 and 45 except the word
"shall".
Is that the amendment?
DELEGATE DULANY: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: If that amendment
is made the section would read "No person
shall be imprisoned for debt, but an obli-
gation for the support of a dependent or
for alimony created by a valid decree of a
court by an agreement approved by decree
of a court shall not constitute a debt within
the meaning of this section."
Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: It is a pleas-
ure to welcome all members of the Commit-
tee to the Committee on Style.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to considering the amendment as
Amendment No. 9 even though it is not
printed?
The Chair hears none. Amendment No. 9.
Delegate Boyles.
DELEGATE BOYLES: Mr. Chairman,
does that not mean, then, that the phrase
"created by a valid decree of the court",
and so forth, is the dependent created by
the valid decree of the court? Is this the
intention?
I am not trying to write legal language,
but my English tells me the court does not
create the dependent.
THE PRESIDENT: I would not think
so, Delegate Boyles, if it is punctuated
properly. "An obligation for the support
of a dependent or for alimony, created
by", I think would be clear.
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Perhaps,
Mr. President, you have solved the prob-
|
lem by using the comma, although I think
it is a little dubious.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think at
least the problem for the Committee on
Style is a little less.
Is there any objection to considering the
amendment even though not printed? The
Chair hears none.
That is Amendment No. 9.
Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: Mr. President,
I do not know that I should add anything.
I think we have cleared up the language
of the section.
THE PRESIDENT: I think everybody
understands.
Delegate Carson, would that solve your
problem so that Amendment No. 8 could be
withdrawn?
DELEGATE CARSON: Almost, Mr.
Chairman. I think if you added the words
"created by" in front of "an agreement",
then you would have made it clear. It is not
totally clear yet. Then it would read "an
obligation for the support of a dependent
or for alimony, created by a valid decree
of a court or created by an agreement ap-
proved by a decree."
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to the further modification?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman,
in light of that, I will at this time with-
draw my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Amend-
ment No. 8 is withdrawn. Amendment No. 9
is before you.
Is there any discussion?
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I would
like to be certain, Mr. President, that the
word "dependent" does always include il-
legitimate children.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would think,
just to answer it myself, in the context in
which it is read, an obligation for the sup-
port of a dependent would be for the sup-
port of a person who was in the status of
a dependent regardless of his relationship,
whether he had no relationship if he were
in fact dependent.
Is that what is intended, Delegate
Dulany?
|
