clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Page 1800   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1800 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 5]

kind of a vote. Both the Commission and
our Committee reached the conclusion that
the gift may be authorized in the budget
is what we mean, by the majority of all
of the members of each house. If it is a
gift of credit, if it is a bond issue or if
it is a loan of credit, a bond issue where the
State is issuing it and is going to get it
back, or if it is a loan of assets, this is not
a one-time thing but it is a continuing
thing that may go over a period of time. It
must, therefore, require the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the members of each
house.

This is done in order to flag- it, in order
to make it perfectly clear this is different
and, therefore, must be given special treat-
ment.

(President H. Vernon Eney resumed the
Chair.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the committee chairman for pur-
poses of clarification?

Delegate Gallagher.

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Judge
Sherbow, is it your intention that when
the legislature passes a bill that it must
state generally what the public purpose
that the bill seeks to serve?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.

DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, we think
it is necessary to say this is a public pur-
pose, what is the public purpose, and it
must be in the legislation.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: In the
Horace Mann case the one college whose
grant was upheld by the Maryland Court
of Appeals and subsequently by inference
by the U. S. Supreme Court was Hood
College. The statute which was challenged
in that case, the grant to Hood as well as
grants to other three colleges, four separate
statutes, did not have in them in any place
what the public purpose was nor were the
appropriations made under any state law
which spelled out the general public pur-
pose to be served. As you would posit the
language, therefore, the grant to Hood
containing no statement of public purpose
would be invalid.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.

DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, maybe
I am going too far. Maybe I talked too
quickly. It must be a public purpose, but
we did not include in the statute nor in our

proposal any statement other than upon
such terms and conditions as the General
Assembly may prescribe by law. In other
words, what we have said is it must be a
public purpose in such a manner and upon
such terms and conditions as the General
Assembly may prescribe by law. They may
say what it is, they may assume that it is
.so generally known that there is no need
to say it but it is left to the General As-
sembly to so state.

But the public purpose must be an actual
fact. Even though it is not stated.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Judge
Sherbow, in looking at section 6.02 —

DELEGATE SHERBOW: Excuse me,
may I interrupt a minute?

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.

DELEGATE SHERBOW: In section
6.02 we do say there the assets or credit
of the State shall not in any manner be
given or loaned to any individual, associa-
tion or corporation unless a public pur-
pose will be served thereby and unless au-
thorized by an act of the General Assembly
stating the public purpose, that is different
where it is a gift or loan of assets or
credit.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Now, in
these cases they involved not loans as we
have under the Maryland Hospital Loan
Commission Act but outright state match-
ing grants: $750,000 for dormitory if the
college could raise an additional $750,000.

This provision would require that the
public purpose be stated in the act if you
were giving $750,000 of matching- money,
it would be a gift of an asset.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.

DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, that is a
gift of cash, a gift of an asset, must have
two things, public purpose to be served
must be authorized by the General As-
sembly stating the public purpose.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.

DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I have no
argument with this suggestion. I think it
is a good one. The fact that it might have
precluded trouble in the past. I will ask you
this question, Judge Sherbow: You do not
envision, your language in the constitu-
tional draft here, to prohibit either the
loan or the giving of assets of the State to



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Page 1800   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives