10,034

1

Constitution, they gave this absolutely no thought at all.

2

There is no research to explain why they took it out or how

3

it was taken out.

4

In the area of eminent domain, the Commission

5

proposal was such that we would have had to add the off-

6

street parking and the urban renewal provisions of our

7

present Constitution to have it comply with the rulings of

8

the Maryland Court of Appeals. This body should be well

9

aware, when they are taking out this matter that they may

10

be substantially changing the law in this state and they

11

don't propose to tell us how it is changed, I would agree

12

that at one time it was a thorn, as they called it, a con-

13

stitutional thorn. Judge Dennis wrote a law review article

14

on it. What he was objecting to was that the state couldn't

15

appeal. That is a doctrine foreign to us today; the state

16

should have a right to appeal. But the procedural provisions

17

were solved when the amendment permitting the judges to

18

determine the sufficiency of the evidence was added to this

19

provision. I would read to you what Judge Henderson said

20

about this in 1947.

21

"At the 1947 session of the General Assembly the