STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AMENDMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Tuesday August 5, 1947 (Afternoon session)

was referred to in the very well chosen remarks of the Chairman of this Convention not so long ago, when he spoke of the constant battle between principle and expediency, in developing that which will be the basic law of one of the foremost, one of the oldest, and presumably one of the most intelligent States in the Union, the State of New Jersey, and that in shaping a Constitution under which this social entity shall operate, the matter of principle shall be the guiding influence, rather than the matter of expediency. Nowhere in the discussions of this Convention has this conflict between expediency and principle been exhibited more than in this area of civil rights, where the interests of so many varied groups are at stake. And there again, the whole principle of the job is the one that should be the determining factor, whether or not those interests are in the democracy or whether those interests are in the interests of preventing democracy to function. We have found a segment of our population throughout the State and Nation constantly expressing fear on the one hand of communism, or on the other hand of fascism. And there are times when these items are under discussion – the matter of civil rights of citizens in a democracy are under discussion – that we wonder whether or not there aren’t those who also fear democracy. And may I make this point: that for those who fear democracy to the degree that they will prevent its realization, we there are taking our longest steps toward one or the other ideologies which we fear even more greatly than we fear democracy; that the principle involved in making a basic law which will be applicable to every citizen of the State is the one prevention against those ideologies which most of us fear in one sense or another.

In this area of civil rights perhaps expediency and perhaps a desire to find a common language have given us an instrument which will have relatively little meaning to those people who need the protection of the Constitution. As has been pointed out, so vague are these words, so limited the area’s coverage, that they lead to any possible interpretation.

The previous speaker has given a splendid example in terms of the right to housing. I believe the Chairman of this Committee, or the Chairman of this session raised the question of using verbiage that would enunciate a broad principle that could be applicable anywhere.

May I say to you, gentlemen and lady, that we have been operating under that kind of broad principle these hundred years and more, a broad principle that says “All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights.” But in spite of the enunciation of that broad principle, we have not had the implementation that would give those broad and unalienable rights to the people who are the citizens of this State and who must

Previous Page in Book | Table of Contents | Next Page in Book