The Chair recognizes Delegate Boyer,
Chairman of the Committee on General
Provisions for the purpose of presenting
Committee Recommendation GP-1. Delegate
Boyer, will you please take the Clerk's
desk?
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. President,
fellow delegates of this Convention, your
General Provisions Committee is very
proud to have this singular honor of mak-
ing its first Committee report to this dis-
tinguished body. As we unfurl the canvas
of our proposal, our recommendation for
today, and sail out of the relatively safe,
serene and calm harbor of our committee
rooms onto an unexplored and unchartered
sea, it appears that this Convention is en-
tering into a new phase of deliberations.
I think Senator Malkus has made a very
pointed recommendation. If I were to place
myself in his position, I could see where
it would be impossible for those who are
not on the General Provisions Committee
to understand exactly how we came to this
point today.
If you allow yourselves to pretend to be
placed behind our chairs as we in our Com-
mittee worked over the proposal on militia,
you might find it helpful in understanding
why we are making this recommendation.
One thing we have in common here today,
is that all of us are on the same footing.
I assume this is the first Constitutional
Convention that we each have attended.
Certainly, it is the first I have ever at-
tended. Perhaps so with my friends. With
your patience if I pull a boo-boo on some
of this, we will work it out some way or
other.
You have in your books GP Recommenda-
tion No. 1. I think it would be superfluous
and time-consuming to read it to you now.
You also have in your books the memo-
randum accompanying this recommenda-
tion. I think it would be a waste of time
to read that. Perhaps what we can do now
is supplement what you have before you.
The first basic question we asked in the
General Provisions Committee was is a
militia necessary? After one questionnaire
on it, we decided there should be something
in the Constitution on a militia. From
there we tried to formulate the language
that would cover what at that time seemed
to be the sense of the Committee. Remem-
ber again this was all new to us as it is
to you.
So the recommendation that you have in
your books at the time it was passed by |
the Committee, was the form in which the
Committee believed this recommendation
should come before you. Since that time, I
understand there have been some second
thoughts. Actually, there were and are to
the best of my knowledge only two points
of dispute in the Committee. The first one
was whether to use the word "shall" or
"may" in empowering the General Assem-
bly to provide for a militia. We took sev-
eral votes on this question. At the time the
recommendation was finally reported out
of the Committee, it was by an 8 to 10 vote
that it should be "may" rather than "shall"
to make it permissive rather than manda-
tory. The Committee felt that it should be
left up to the General Assembly to estab-
lish the militia.
It was the Committee's view that if the
General Assembly were mandated to pro-
vide a militia with no further authoriza-
tion for getting into the many wrinkles of
detail, it could fulfill its obligation perhaps
by appointing a token force of three or
five or ten men or something like that. The
General Provisions Committee believed that
compelling the General Assembly to create
a militia would be an exercise in futility
unless it were to spell out in great detail
all the ramifications and facets of its or-
ganization. The Committee felt that this
would be superfluous and unnecessary,
therefore, it left the details to the legisla-
tive representatives of the people.
The second area of dispute and conflict
in the Committee was whether or not the
governor, who by unanimous agreement
should have been and will be the Com-
mander-in-Chief, should appoint "all other
officers" or whether he should appoint "the
Adjutant General and other officers". This,
too, passed by an 8 to 10 vote. I under-
stand that today a minority report is
being offered and that the majority of
the Committee has signed the minority re-
port. You will hear more about that later,
I am sure.
There was no dispute in the Committee
about the governor being the Commander-
in-Chief, or about his having the authority
and responsibility to appoint militia offi-
cers, but there was great discussion about
creating in the Constitution an adjutant
general specifically. By an 8 to 10 vote it
was decided not to designate this particular
office because it was thought that changing
times, conditions, or mores, could neces-
sitate elimination of such a specifically
named official and create conditions calling
for another executive officer by perhaps
another name. |
