|
decided not to be that restrictive with the
General Assembly, and merely to hold it
to those areas when existing general laws
were applicable.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
if the Chair may interrupt, I think maybe
I can restate Delegate Moser's question to
bring it to your attention a little more
sharply.
Section 7.06 says "Except as otherwise
provided in the constitution," and then
proceeds with the general exceptions.
As I understand Delegate Moser's ques-
tion, it is whether the negative statement
in 3.17 would constitute an affirmative pro-
vision which would bring you within the
first clause of section 7.06. Is that your
problem, Delegate Moser?
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes, that is it.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: What we
have to remember is that in most states of
the union they usually put together this
prohibition, and it usually reads this way:
"The General Assembly shall pass no
special or local law."
Maryland, because of its strange history
with respect to public local laws, has an
entirely diiferent tangent upon which we
take off, as explained by the entire section
4. I do not think that stating the special
legislation section in 3.17a in the negative
contravenes 7.06 or makes the two contra-
dictory.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
I think you still miss the point that he is
making.
It is not directed to local public laws at
all, as the Chair understands it, but to pub-
lic general laws.
Delegate Moser is suggesting that under
7.06 even though it is under the local gov-
ernment article, under 7.08 unless there is
express statutory provision or authoriza-
tion there is a prohibition against the
legislature enacting any law other than
public general laws, and he inquires
whether your negative statement in 8.17a
is sufficient to meet that statement in 7.06.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: He is ask-
ing me whether or not putting it in the
negative, combined with the language of
7.06, will make it possible for Maryland
ever to pass a special law.
THE CHAIRMAN: The other way
around; putting it in the negative may not
be "as otherwise provided in the Constitu-
|
tion" which seems to connote an affirma-
tive statement.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I see
the difficulty. I think it has to be differ-
ently stated, Mr. Moser.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Is it the inten-
tion of your Committee — and I would agree
if it is — that what you want is basically
the present practice with respect to con-
tinuing with the permission and prohibi-
tion of special laws?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: For the record
I should say that the Committee on Local
Government did not intend to take any
position one way or the other with respect
to special legislation.
May I ask another question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE MOSER: Is the last clause,
reading, "and whether general law is ap-
plicable shall be a matter for judicial de-
termination" really necessary?
I ask the question because I know it is
in the model act, but we do not have it in
section 7.06, and we certainly do intend
the question of whether a law is the general
law shall also be subject to judicial de-
termination. I have some question about
including it in this section of the constitu-
tion but not including it in 7.06. I just
want to make sure that your Committee
and our Committee mean exactly the same
thing.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I am told
by those more knowledgeable than I that
the reason why it is included in the model
act is the result of experiences which grew
out of the Minnesota Constitution in 1965.
I will yield to Mr. Hanson for a more
lengthy discourse on the experience of the
Minnesota convention, but that is the rea-
son.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know that
you have answered Delegate Moser's ques-
tion.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: We put it
in because we felt with the history of spe-
cial legislation and the question of whether
or not it was a judicial matter, we ought
to put it in as a safety factor, and perhaps
you ought to do the same thing.
|
