the passage of this bill than I had ever before made. I have thought
about it a great deal, and I still don't know what more I could have
done.

Those who have been most critical of the failure of this important
piece of legislation lose sight of the fact that quite frequently matters
of great consequence such as this require more than one session of the
General Assembly for passage. Take, as good example, the legisla-
tion creating our present system of public higher education. You
recall the report of the Warfield Commission in 1959 and the effort
that was made to carry out its suggestions through legislation. But
the Legislature would not approve this report, and so I named still
another commission—the Curlett Commission—to re-examine the situ-
ation. Finally, in 1963 the General Assembly received the report and
recommendations of that Commission and created what is generally
considered to be an excellent system of public higher education. It
was a drastic measure, and the lawmakers in Annapolis chose to
proceed with great caution and great deliberation. The Cooper-
Hughes proposal was, if anything, an even more drastic program, and
there were many who were surprised that it came so near passage-
within two votes in the House of Delegates.

Many more examples could be cited of legislative wariness in the
face of proposals of great consequence. The General Assembly last
year turned down my proposal for the creation of an educational tele-
vision program in the State, but when I made a similar request this
year they approved it. My proposal last year that we begin the im-
mediate construction of a second crossing of the Chesapeake Bay was
rejected out of hand by the Legislature at the 1965 session, but a second
Bay crossing was approved at the session which adjourned a few weeks
ago. I signed the parallel bridge bill into law last week, and at the
time I issued a statement in which I attempted to clarify this Adminis-
tration's position on the subject. I said—and I repeat now—that I know
of no proposed law that has generated so much dissension, so much
misinformation, so much conscious distortion of the truth as has this
bill. Most people do not know—despite the fact that it has been said
and printed innumerable times—that there was no legal necessity for
this bill. Two years ago I was advised by both local and New York
counsel that this Administration had full legal authority to begin the
parallel bridge without additional legislation. It was I who decided
to place the matter before the General Assembly, notwithstanding the
fact that I was sure I did not need the legislative approval. But I felt
that in an undertaking of such far-reaching importance, the people

325