|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
think the Committee intended such a re-
sult. I think the Committee intended that
concurrently with the operation of the Gen-
eral Assembly a record shall be made avail-
able to inform the public completely of
what happened. I am sure you agree, Sen-
ator, as a lawyer, that legislative history
is quite important, and in the proper inter-
pretation of that which you intended on
doing it is very helpful to have the tran-
script of what happened.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: This is a differ-
ence between a provision being directory
and mandatory. I am not taking a position
on that at the moment. However, I think
it should be clear whether this provision
concerning testimony is mandatory or di-
rectory.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I certainly
do not want to make it a second class re-
quirement of this constitution. I think that
this requirement ought to be as respected
and followed honestly and in good faith as
any other section of the constitution.
I would not want it downgraded. I think
the Committee intends that there shall be
the kind of information that 3.17 calls for.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: So that it con-
ceivably could be mandatory, and if the
facilities for recording debates and pro-
ceedings by minute stenographic transcript
are not available, then the General As-
sembly would be immobilized.
This is the question that this raises.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You are
asking me for the effect. I wish I could
give you a better answer. I simply say
that if things come to that stage of the
game when you cannot get a stenographer,
that you must be in a great hurry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: It could easily
happen.
Now, the next thing along the same line
is the requirement that the committee votes
be attached in the record in the same man-
ner as votes of the entire house are now
attached and made record.
Would this go so far as to include the
votes of, for instance, standing subcom-
|
mittees of a major committee? How far
down the lines does this committee require-
ment go?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: As I un-
derstand it, it applies only to the regular
committees of both the House and the
Senate.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: And not to sub-
committees?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: This would be as
I understand it and as I interpret it a
legal requirement that must be in the
journal. You are saying that not only the
vote of the entire House, but the vote of
the entire committee on the particular is-
sue, or rather not necessarily the entire
committee, but those present and voting
would be a mandatory legal requirement?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
before we leave that section and because
the Chair thinks it is so important, I would
like to direct your attention a little more
carefully to the series of questions pro-
pounded by Delegate James and call your
attention to the Court of Appeals, with
which I am sure you are familiar, that
held under the present Constitution, that
the requirement that the final votes on
passage of a bill be entered in the journal
was mandatory and that in the absence
of the entry of the final votes, the bill was
not properly enacted.
The Chair would like you to indicate
clearly, so that the Committee of the Whole
will be apprized, whether you intend that
kind of result to follow from the last sen-
tence of this section, beginning on line 17,
which is practically the same as the pres-
ent Constitution?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir. I
do not think that the Committee intended
that any one requirement or any one sen-
tence should have a higher priority than
the other. They are all of equal dignity.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then I take it your
answer would be that you would intend that
the same result would follow from a viola-
|
