11,701

1

as to the language there. What has been stated by the

2

committee is that that language was considered modified

3

or explained by the. colloquy which took place in the

4

Committee of the Whole which colloquy indicated that it was

5

intended by that phrase not to restrict the Legislature

6

solely to agricultural use but to any of the criteria which

7

had been mentioned and to overrule the case in the Court of

8

Appeals which held otherwise. So that the committee in

9

making the change has endeavored to give effect to the

10

phrase not merely as it was written but as it was ex-

11

plained.

12

Now this leaves open for the Convention on second

13

reading the question of whether it desires to go along with

14

that construction. It is clear that as it is intended now

15

it would give the General Assembly much broader authority

16

in defining the exemption of agricultural property. It

17

would not be limited to use.

18

Delegate Bamberger.

19

DELEGATE BAMBERCER: So that we can all be

20

assured of this, rould either Delegate Penniman or the

21

Chair tell me if those pages of the transcript of that