|
private corporations so long as a public
purpose is served and so long as the other
traditional First Amendment requirements
are adhered to; would that be a correct
statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That is a
correct statement, Delegate Gallagher.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask Delegate Sherbow
whether a court would be bound by the
second unless, "unless authorized by an act
of the General Assembly stating the public
purpose". In other words, would the court
go behind the declaration and take testi-
mony as to whether a public purpose as a
matter of fact was actually being served
or is it your intention to give the legisla-
tive declaration paramount authority?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: To the extent
that you could I would say we intend to
give it paramount authority but, of course,
I could conceive of a situation where on the
face of the law perhaps the question could
be raised. I cannot tell you how I could
dream it up but I am saying yes to your
question, we assume that when the General
Assembly has so spoken this is what is
meant, this is what it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dele-ate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Do you expect the
court to accept the statement at face value
if it is a reasonable statement of public
purpose?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Without ques-
tion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate James Clark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: Delegate Sher-
bow, the last session of the legislature
acted on several occasions in authorization
of bonds. Of course, many of these or
most of them have, not been sold at this
time and perhaps will not be sold at the
time this constitution will become effective.
|
The question is, will the provisions in
this constitution apply to these authoriza-
tions which have been made and not yet
sold?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, it would
not for this reason. There should be and
will be transitory provisions which would
provide for the protection of the laws al-
ready passed not yet in effect but going
into effect just as they would protect many
of the O'ther transitory features of what
we are now in the process of doing.
So that you would not revoke bond issues
simply because the constitution was in ef-
fect and all that had preceded it that had
not yet been publicly offered would die.
But this is going to require a transitory
provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James
Clark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: The question
of whether it would die or not was not my
main thrust. Could those bonds be sold
under these provisions?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: They would
be sold under the provisions of the law
existing when they were passed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James
Clark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: They could
never be sold under the provisions of the
new constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Not unless
the legislature decided to repeal these laws
and re-enact them because what would hap-
pen would be the transitory provision
should carry them over.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
The Chair hears none.
Thank you, Delegate Sherbow.
The Chair calls on Delegate Stern to
present the minority report.
DELEGATE STERN: Mr. Chairman,
members of -the Committee, yesterday when
I was preparing this and came in and sat
down next to Delegate Storm he noticed I
had a little cut and asked me what hap-
pened. I told him while preparing for this
|
