|
tion of any of the separate sentences of
section 3.17?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Gal-
lagher, again with reference to section
3.17 (a) I understand your answer to Dele-
gate Carson with respect to certain special
laws that the General Assembly could not
pass, but I am concerned about the defini-
tion that you gave, and the leeway that
you gave to the General Assembly with re-
spect to the passage of special laws.
With the exclusion of the tax power from
section 7.05 of the local government article
to what extent can the General Assembly
pass local legislation which would override
the broad grant of power to the counties
under section 7.05?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: To what
extent could the General Assembly pass —
DELEGATE CLAGETT: A special law
overriding the powers which have been
granted to the local subdivisions under the
broad grant in 7.05.
Specifically, you gave an illustration
that you wanted to provide that the Gen-
eral Assembly could give special conces-
sions tc some individual corporation, which
it sought to induce to come into the State,
and presumably it would have to locate in
one of the 24 counties in the State.
To what extent can the General Assem-
bly under this provision override what
would otherwise be laws that would be
passed only by the local subdivisions, sub-
ject to withdrawal by general law by the
General Assembly?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
say that if the plenary power has been
granted to the local subdivision in a spe-
cific area, that in the absence of the with-
drawal of that power that the General
Assembly could not pass a special act erod-
ing in effect the power which the local sub-
division had been given.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Therefore it
is contemplated here specifically by the
Committee that prior to the passage of a
special law giving special concessions to a
|
corporation, there would have to be a gen-
eral withdrawal by the General Assembly
exercising its plenary powers?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Com-
mittee actually did not get into that intri-
cate consideration. In reality, we spoke in
terms of the relief of individuals, someone
who had been jailed incorrectly, or in some
way harmed by the State, and the State
would want to make redress to them in
some manner.
There you would not have any problem
with your local government, but in the area
of tax exemptions and real estate, you
would be getting into the local govern-
ment's domain so to speak. I would think
that to do that you would have to do it in
an orderly fashion and withdraw before
you could operate successfully within that
sphere.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair suggests
that this is an inappropriate time to be
discussing the effect of the local govern-
ment article and I am afraid that the com-
ments made now will serve only to muddy
the waters rather than clarify them.
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman, I
was going to say something like that. While
I had thought on several occasions about
this problem of Delegate Gallagher's, I do
not think we got into it this deeply and it
would be better it seems to me if the two
committees, at least he and I got together.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Our Com-
mittee is not urging this as kind of a
favorite special law. I simply mentioned
it as a kind of special law that the legis-
lature could pass. I suspect the Court of
Appeals would end up with the problem.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Chairman
Gallagher, I have two questions to ask
which I hope will clarify the problems
which may arise under section 3.02.
Is it your conception that the same
standards are applicable to congressional
redistricting as are applicable to reappor-
tionment?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: In other
words, you are familiar with those state-
|
