|
yield the power to some but not all coun-
ties with utilization of standards and pro-
cedures. I do not think this is enlightening.
Ultimately the county itself would have to
pass the law to establish the office of sheriff
if it were to be done on a non-uniform
basis.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: In other words, un-
less this provision is passed, the General
Assembly itself could not provide for the
office of sheriff of the various counties?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: That is not ex-
actly what I said. They could not provide
positively for it, but they could withdraw
the power from all counties and then per-
mit some counties to have sheriffs subject
to standards; the county would have to
follow those standards. The General As-
sembly could not enact a positive law say-
ing that there will be a sheriff only in Cal-
vert County, for instance.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, the
Chair would like to be sure that he under-
stands your answer.
Is it that the legislature by public gen-
eral law could provide for a sheriff in each
county and it could provide the method of
selection of such a sheriff, is that what
you are saying?
DELEGATE MOSER: That is not pre-
cisely what I was saying.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that true?
DELEGATE MOSER: That is correct,
but the General Assembly could not vary
the duties of the sheriff from county to
county. I think that is clear.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: I would like to
ask Delegate Moser a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MOSER: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: Would your in-
terpretation of the general law be in con-
flict with the provisions that are set out in
this section?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
|
DELEGATE MOSER: I do not know
that I understand Delegate Barrick's ques-
tion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, pro-
ceed.
DELEGATE MOSER: What do you
mean by "conflict"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: As I under-
stand this section, it is to provide the Gen-
eral Assembly with power to pass a law for
a specific county or for several counties,
but to deal with them differently as far as
the sheriff is concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: That would be
the effect of this provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: All right.
Would that be in conflict with your inter-
pretation of the general law as we dealt
with it in the local government article?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes, in the sense
that the amendment would get the legis-
lature back into doing things that I believe,
at least, the Local Government Committee
thought should properly be handled by the
counties themselves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: What bothers
me is that there seems to be a conflict be-
tween the interpretation of the Local Gov-
ernment Committee and the interpretation
here. If there is a conflict, which would
prevail?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: This would pre-
vail, I think, because of the interpretation
we have placed upon section 7.06 which is
that in the case of a state function such
as this, the use of the words "by law"
would permit a variation from county to
county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, the
Chair is very perplexed at the colloquy
that has just been pursued in the light of
section 7.06 and the discussions which the
Chair thought had occurred in that Com-
mittee.
If the sheriff were to be designated by
the legislature as a state official perform-
ing a state function, such as police powers,
would it not clearly be within section 7.06?
|
