|
kins, as always, is very persuasive with me.
I think what he has suggested is preferred
if we are to do anything along these lines,
but I would like to say this: the Chairman
of the Committee, as he began his remarks,
announced to my surprise that this was
an emotional issue. As I listened to the de-
bate, I have seen how correct he was in
those remarks.
Whatever we put in this constitution,
Mr. Carson, would not have saved the rock-
fish, if there had been an exhortatory arti-
cle in the previous Constitution. It is when
the people of this state through their repre-
sentatives come alive to the fact that con-
servation is all-important, then and then
only will we achieve the true conservation
measures that we all desire. No exhortation
in the constitution is going to bring that
about.
For example, the 14th Amendment lasted
nearly a hundred years before Congress
took action to implement this great prin-
ciple of the Civil Rights Act of 1958, de-
spite the fact it was an exhortation in the
14th Amendment that Congress could im-
plement the principles of that amendment
by statute.
The representatives of the people in the
long run will determine the type of con-
servation they have in this State. There-
fore, I think it either is a meaningless
statement of a platitude, or more danger-
ous as has been suggested in the debate,
somehow to create a judicially enforceable
article. It is for that reason I prefer Dele-
gate Adkins' suggestion, which has the
virtue of candor and honesty since it is a
pure exhortation. Unless the legislature
acts and implements it, it is meaningless.
Furthermore, it has been perfectly clear
and the Chairman of the Committee ad-
mitted that the legislature has the plenary
power, contrary to Mr. Gleason's situation.
The federal government can only conserve
to the exercise of its delegated powers, over
interstate powers, waterways or some of
the other specifically delegated powers, but
a state, including this State, has the ple-
nary power to act to conserve. It can do
that now, and no amount of exhortation to
do it is going to bring it about, if the rep-
resentatives of the people are not ready
to do it.
Finally, I think we create a dangerous
precedent if we put this fine, meaningless
declaration in the constitution to satisfy
the conservationists. The consumer credit
people, the labor people, the farmers and
the others, are all behind with their ex-
|
hortatory proposals. If that is the kind of
constitution you think you have come here
to write, go write it. To me it does not
make any sense.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Bothe to speak in opposition
to the amendment.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Actually, Mr.
Chairman, Delegate Scanlan expressed my
views quite perfectly on the subject of an
exhortatory declaration of this or any other
matter in the constitution.
I point out to Delegate Bard, that Arti-
cle 43 in the Declaration of Rights, exhorts
the legislature not only to encourage the
diffusion of knowledge but says further
that it should encourage the diffusion of
virtue.
That provision has been here a long time
and I challenge him to give me an example
of its operative effect.
I feel that by placing matters of this
kind in the constitution, whether they per-
tain to conservation, which of course I sub-
scribe to wholeheartedly, to the next item
recommended by the General Provisions
Committee, consumer protection, or any
other of such provisions, is to hold out a
false hope and to create a document which
is more decorous than definitive and re-
sponsible, and for that reason, I would op-
pose both the amendment to the amend-
ment and the Committee's Recommendation
with regard to such reference being in-
cluded in the present constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate White?
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I
have listened for the past two hours, and I
find the discussion a bit confusing.
Great emphasis has been placed on di-
recting the legislature to perform certain
functions. Apparently many delegates here
will reject this concept on the theory that
certain things may not be enforceable, that
they are mere expressions of high ideals
that may not be attainable; however, I
see a provision which this same Convention
has passed saying that a post-audit shall
be provided by the General Asembly. And
when I go over the general provisions sec-
tion, it also says that certain other things
"shall be." So I am wondering, are we fear-
ful of attempting to protect our natural re-
sources? Are we using the same arguments
|
