us today for consideration as the Commit-
tee of the Whole the General Provisions
Recommendation, GP-2, the section con-
cerning oaths. 1 sincerely hope that it will
not be as controversial as the last non-
controversial item, GP-I. Perhaps the ac-
tion by the Supreme Court today will
smooth some of the rough waters.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, the General
Provisions Committee would like to pay
special recognition and gratitude to the
subcommittee who worked on oaths, headed
by Delegates Blair, Singer, Lord and
Wheatley. It has been our custom in the
General Provisions Committee to thor-
oughly discuss each item, but because of
the many ramifications of each item and
the variety of items referred to us, we
have thought it more expedient to delegate
into special subcommittees some specializa-
tion, and this is the purpose of the Sub-
committee on Oaths. After the subcommit-
tee made its report back to the full Com-
mittee, of course we then had full discus-
sion ; and I am very happy to report to my
knowledge there are no minority reports
on this section.
The Committee on General Provisions
considered, we thought, every aspect of the
oath. We considered that the judicial
meaning of the phrase "an office of profit
or trust" in many cases were in these terms
defined. The Committee considered the use
of the words "swear or affirm", and we felt
that the authority for usage is in the Con-
stitution of the United States, Article VI,
in the presentation oath of office. The af-
firmation was initially designed to rectify
the practical injustice that resulted to
suitors where witnesses, who possessed a
prerequisite belief in God were nevertheless
prevented from testifying because of their
conscientious scruples against taking a
solemn oath.
The English Parliament and the legis-
latures of many of the American states en-
acted legislation to enable those believers,
conscientiously scrupulous of taking the
oath and to qualify therefor as witnesses
by affirmation.
State constitutional provisions similarly
provided for the affirmation as an oath
substitute in a variety of instances.
The oath is identical, as we present it,
with the draft and existing Constitutions,
in the essential areas to support the Con-
stitution of the United States, to be faith-
ful and bear true allegiance to the State
of Maryland, and to support the constitu-
tion and laws thereof. |
The proposed oath that we present to
you differs, however, from the existing
Constitution only in the last part, where
it delineates, or deletes the provision that
a governor, a senator, a member of the
House of Delegates or judge will not di-
rectly or indirectly receive profits from
any part of the profits of any other office
during his term of acting in such capacity.
This was deleted because it was not felt
appropriate for an oath of office.
The Committee noted that the prohibi-
tion as to the members of the General As-
sembly has been retained in draft section
3.09. The Committee further recommends
that the provision contained in article 35
of the Declaration of Rights pertaining to
plurality of office be deleted, and is of the
opinion that the matter should be left to
the Legislature, or elsewhere in the con-
stitution in the area pertaining to quali-
fication for office or conflict of interest.
The final change recommended by your
Committee was the omission from the
draft constitution of the words "or political
test", where the phrase reads, "no other
oath or political test shall be required".
This was done because of the ambiguity
of the construction that might be given to
such language. Does age, qualification, com-
mission of crime, declaration of party
registration as a Democrat or Republican,
constitute a political test? It was the
opinion of a representative of the attorney-
general's office who testified in connection
with oaths that there could be some ques-
tion raised as to the construction of this
provision.
The Court of Appeals has held that the
Ober Law, a loyalty law, does not consti-
tute an oath; although the draft consti-
tution does not include section 7 of the
present Constitution, your Committee was
of the opinion that such a statement should
be contained in the Constitution in the
event of refusal or neglect to take an oath
of affirmation. This is the last paragraph
of the blue recommendation.
This would .establish the time when the
office would be vacated and how it should
be filled as prescribed by law would include
constitutional as well as statutory fiat.
Finally, your Committee reviewed the his-
torical transition from belief in the Su-
preme Being and theistic principles re-
lating to oaths to the present interpreta-
tion enunciated under Schowgurow and
other cases. After reviewing the age-old
battle between personal liberty and gov- |
