There is one specific point to which I
would like to direct my remarks. Although
not mentioned in my distinguished col-
leagues' remarks, though in the addendum
they make the point, the principal ground
for the bicameral system has been cut away
as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
They quote that distinguished reporter,
Bradford Jacobs of the Evening Sun, "The
Supreme Court decision cut away the
ground upon which the two-House system
stood from the beginning".
Mr. Jacobs is a distinguished reporter,
his credentials as a constitutional historian
are something else.
From the beginning both houses were
supposed to be on a population basis in
this State. I would like to quote Woodrow
Wilson, before he was President of the
United States, and while he was one of the
great professors of government and politi-
cal scientists in his work on state govern-
ment where he makes the basic point on
which bicameralism stands: "Reasons for
Two Houses in State Legislatures . . .
There is, consequently, no such historical
ground for having two houses in the states
as exists in the case of the federal govern-
ment. The object of the federal arrange-
ment is the representation of the two ele-
ments upon which the national government
rests, namely, the popular will and a fed-
eral union of states. The state legislatures
have two houses simply for purpose of de-
liberateness in legislation, in order, that
is, that legislation may be filtered through
the debates of two coordinate bodies, repre-
senting slightly differing constituencies,
though coming both directly from the
people, and may thus escape the taint of
precipitation too apt to attach to the con-
clusions of a single all-powerful chamber.
The double organization represents no
principle, but only an effort at prudence."
I will not take the time to quote here,
the remarks of Chief Justice Warren's
opinion in Reynolds v, Sims, the companion
case of our own Maryland case. However,
that citation from Woodrow Wilson was in
our brief representing the view that bi-
cameralism can flourish when both houses
are maintained on a substantially equal
population basis.
The majority of the court agreed with
that argument, and in its opinion, which I
will not quote now, except for the first sen-
tence, said, "We do not believe that the
concept of bicameralism is rendered anach-
ronistic and meaningless when the pre-
dominant basis of representation in the two
state legislative bodies is required to be |
the some—population." The opinion con-
tinued with quotations from Wilson ex-
plaining why bicameralism can work well
on a substantially equal population basis.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one min-
ute.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Thank you. I
did want to reply to the specific argument
the unicameralists made. Quoting Mr.
Jacobs, it is not true that it has no basis
in historical fact. I did think it important
to point that out. Other arguments have
been well covered by those who spoke in
favor of bicameralism. It is a close case,
but I do not think the game is worth the
candle. For the more important reforms
which we seek in the end, I stake my case
with Woodrow Wilson, Earl Warren, and
George Washington.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I yield two minutes to Delegate Bryson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bryson:
DELEGATE BRYSON: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to speak briefly on the issue
of the two-house versus the one-house Gen-
eral Assembly. I appreciate and respect
the fact that the Committee on the Legis-
lative Branch voted 3 to 1 in favor of a
two-house Assembly. I am afraid, however,
that this vote represents a failure to take
advantage of an opportunity which may
not come again for a long time to move
forward to a better system, a failure that
is largely the produce of a human ingrained
resistance to change.
We have recently witnessed a basic
change through the enforcement of the one
man, one vote principle in the structure of
our election system. With this should come
in my opinion realistic adjustment to the
new principle that elected officials repre-
sent people, not places.
The second house historically represented
places rather than people and so under
changing circumstances, its functions have
disappeared. We can make theoretical argu-
ments that serve to hide our reluctance to
recognize the change. But it is impossible
to hide the fact, obvious to those who wish
to see, that the two-house system is cum-
bersome, expensive, and inefficient, and
that it limits our continuing power to ad-
just to change as rapidly as circumstances
require.
The plan reported by the Committee con-
templates one hundred and five election dis-
tricts— |
