|
tions, I think we are not only discussing
here the question of legislative visibility,
although I admit that that is one facet of
it, but I think the deeper issue here is the
constitutional prerequisites which must be
met before a bill finally becomes a law.
This goes to the heart of these subjects,
and the leading case on this subject has
been discussed over and over again, the
Redwood Case. It is my recollection that
in the Court of Appeals, the State in that
case was represented by Chief Judge Hall
Hammond, and Circuit Court Judge Harri-
son L. Winters, who is the highest federal
court judge we have in the State, and I
would like to ask you so that you can put
ii on the record, who was the counsel for
the taxpayer in that case who won the case
and started all this mess in the first place?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: As Dele-
gate Case will know, from the copy of the
case which I handed to him a few minutes
ago, the counsel was Mr. Robert Thomas.
Would you also like to know the name of
his co-counsel?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I think in the par-
lance of some of the larger firms in Balti-
more, they are called associates.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr.
Thomas' associate was then a rising young
lawyer by the name of H. Vernon Eney.
Mr. President, you don't want to ask
me anything else about that case, do you?
THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment No. 21.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 21
to Committee Recommendation LB-2 by
Delegate James:
On page 5, section 3.17, Journal and
Passage of Bills in lines 4 and 5 strike out
the words "and a transcript of its de-
bates"; and in line 6 strike out the words
"the transcript" and insert in lieu thereof
the word "it."
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
submitted by Delegate James. Is there a
second?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate James to speak to the amendment.
|
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, I do not wish to prolong
this matter. I would simply like to reiterate
once again that we are violating funda-
mental constitutional principles here in be-
coming so detailed, in providing for the
legislative procedure.
No outstanding constitutional authorities
would agree that you must provide all of
this procedural detail for the passage of
bills.
Section 3.17 raises very seriously the
question of providing that a transcript of
the debates must be maintained as a consti-
tutional matter. I interpret that as manda-
tory and when something is mandatory,
there is no discretion whatsoever, so that
if you are depending upon mechanical
equipment for recording of the debates,
and if the mechanical equipment does not
work to your knowledge, or if you are de-
pending upon stenographic transcript, and
the stenographer loses his notes, a very
serious legal question arises as to whether
you have the type of a record which would
sustain the legality of any legislative pro-
ceedings which might have been taken.
I checked the federal Constitution and I
found no such requirements as we have
here. The federal Constitution, which we
will note for brevity and which we certainly
here have not in any manner succeeded in
following, says, each house shall keep a
journal of its proceedings and from time
to time publish the same, excepting such
parts as in their judgment require se-
crecy, and the yeas and nays of the mem-
bers of either house on any question are
at the desire of one-fifth of those present
to be entered on the journal; so there is
no requirement really for entry of the jour-
nal in the record of the full house of the
federal Congress.
The federal Congress, of course, has un-
limited functions, which is an area where
money means nothing, because it is the
general philosophy that you do what you
have to and worry about it later, and they
provide a very expensive type of journal.
This will cost the taxpayers of Mary-
land something in the neighborhood of
$100,000 a year. It is a gigantic proposi-
tion, which requires not only the taking of
notes, but checking out, proofing and all
that sort of thing and it is not worth any-
thing unless you do the necessary checking
to make certain that it is accurate. Of
course, as I understand, Congress may be
accurate and it may not be, because you
can go into it to change it all around to
suit the member.
|
