the Whole, that in my judgment, there are
other persons perhaps more qualified than
I to speak on this subject. In practice in
the State of Maryland, the governor uses
the national guard and calls them out as
the active militia in cases of emergency.
However, while serving as members of the
national guard in training periods in the
evening or on week-ends or in summer
drills, they are not then members of the
militia, they are members of the army na-
tional guard of Maryland or the air na-
tional guard of Maryland.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer
your question, Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I believe it
does, Mr. Chairman. It would then appear
that I must oppose it if I understand the
explanation. Inasmuch, as the amendment
provides that only members of the militia
may be subject to trial by military court in
this State, and members of the national
guard would not be subject to such trial
by military court, I would have to oppose
the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, if I might add to the comment made
by Delegate Clarke, the testimony before
the Committee was that the national guard,
as such, constitutes the organized militia
and, therefore, would be a part of the
whole. I think this might clear up the prob-
lem raised. This would include in my inter-
pretation national guard since the national
guard would be a smaller part of the whole.
The qualifying language would be "actual
service" which would mean the vast body
of militia might be national guard or other
members of the militia then in actual serv-
ice.
This, incidentally, I think, is one of the
most troublesome areas of the whole law
because of the use of words with very par-
ticular meanings, "active duty" and "actual
service." We, therefore, try to use the
broadest language, "actual service" rather
than "active duty." I think this amendment
would include national guard since na-
tional guard has been defined as the organ-
ized militia.
THE CHAIRMAN: is there any further
discussion? The Chair wants to direct an
inquiry to Delegate Boyer, the Chairman
of the Committee on General Provisions.
Delegate Boyer, in an earlier draft of the
Committee Recommendation GP-I, which I
saw, the third word from the end in line
20 was "of" and not "in." I wonder if in |
this printing it is a typographical error
or is it deliberate that the word "in" is in-
tended?
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. Chairman,
this is a typographical error and the proof
should read at line 20 "to trial by military
court of this State" instead of "in."
THE CHAIRMAN: In the absence of
objection, the Chair will consider the typo-
graphical error corrected. Is there any ob-
jection? The change is to strike the word
"in", the third word from the end of line
20 and substitute the word "of." So that
it reads "subject to trial by a military court
of this State." I do not know whether that
has any bearing on the last three or four
questions, or not.
Is there any further discussion? Delegate
Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Will Delegate
E. J. Clarke yield for a question?
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: Gladly.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Could the dele-
gate explain to us in just what way on this
point the Committee report differs from
the language that appears in Article 32 of
our present Declaration of Rights?
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: I do not
have that language before me, Delegate
Chabot. Do you mean federal?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Our Declara-
tion of Rights.
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: I think it is
just different wording, Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Same meaning?
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: Same mean-
ing, as I read it, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
if the language of GP-I in line 20 is
changed from "in" to "of," I would urge
that the amendment which is before us
make the same change in line 4 so that in-
stead of word "of," it read, "in."
THE CHAIRMAN: The sponsor changes
the word "in," the seventh word, I think
it is, in line 4 of the amendment. Does the
seconder accept the word? Is there objec-
tion? If not, the word "in" is changed to
the word "of" in line 4 of the amendment.
Is there any further discussion? Delegate
Pascal. |
