|
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 118 votes in the affirmative
and none in the negative, the motion is
carried and the resolution is adopted.
The Chair at this time proposes to rec-
ognize Delegate Beatrice Miller on a matter
of personal privilege, a statement of great
importance to this Convention. Following
the statement by Beatrice Miller, the Chair
intends to recognize in succession five other
delegates.
I request all delegates to remain in their
seats, to remain in the Chamber to give
close attention until after the six speakers
have made their statements. The Chair at
that time will make a statement which will
indicate to you that the statements planned
have been concluded and if there are any
other delegates who desire to make further
statements, it can be done at that time.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, I rise with con-
siderable trepidation to explain briefly why
the proponents will not request further
consideration of section 1.17 on collective
bargaining.
I stated the other day that we would
seek a compromise. Since then I have found
out that the compromise was impossible.
We had pared that statement in 1.17 down
to a fundamental right which could not be
further compromised without injuring the
rights of half a million organized workers
who now enjoy collective bargaining.
I had sought to allay the fears of those
half million workers and the other half
million of unorganized workers, the great
block of people, one million whose vote and
support is needed for this Constitution.
Despite the many good and wonderful
things that we have wrought here, these
people express a real fear that somehow
this Constitution, like the federal Consti-
tution, when it was first offered to the
people, is lacking in its protection of basic
rights. I share their fears, and I would
like to explain.
I came to this Convention with only one
real conviction and that was that the State
|
needed to be put back into the business of
government, that unless we did that, we
would have even more powerful federal
and local relationships and continued by-
passing of the State.
Where had the State failed? Why had it
been by-passed? The answer was obvious.
To the extent that the state government
failed to accept their new role in the new
philosophy of government, to that extent,
they have been ignored.
What was that new concept? Surely no
one can deny that since the 1930's the
federal government adopted the concept
that the economic and social welfare of all
of its citizens was the trust of government.
To the extent that local governments ac-
cepted that philosophy and state govern-
ments rejected it, to that extent were state
governments by-passed.
This, fellow delegates, is the basic crisis
that we face, not reform. Important as the
reform is, reform of the judiciary, reform
of the executive, and reform of the legis-
lative, the basic question is the acceptance
by the State of the philosophy of social
and economic responsibility for its citizens.
As I review this constitution, I am con-
cerned. In this area we have failed and
we have failed because of the most igno-
minious reason of all: We failed not be-
cause we did not recognize our responsibili-
ties, not because we rejected the philosophy,
but we failed, as delegates on this floor
have admitted, because the business com-
munity selfishly and short-sightedly threat-
ened to scuttle this constitution and we
responded to the pressure.
The honest conviction of eighty-three
delegates who supported on first reading
1.17 was then thwarted. Unfortunately,
most of what happened on this floor was
fully reported by the press and is no secret
to the one million workers in the State of
Maryland. Some of it was not reported,
and I do not intend to wash that dirty
linen in public, but I want to go on. The
morality, the ethics, and the basic right,
and the sheer need of this provision for
collective bargaining was admitted on this
floor. The right of these unprotected work-
ers to organize and bargain collectively
was not questioned.
The argument was made that this is a
matter of legislation for the General As-
sembly to enact. Therefore, it is my hope
that in the next few months affirmative
action by the General Assembly will help
erase that fear, that bitterness, that frus-
tration and disappointment. I hope that
|
