|
ficially created natural boundaries, such as
the beltway. I would sec no inconsistency
between the two.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Gal-
lagher, may I make an inquiry? With re-
spect to the inquiry of Delegate Weide-
meyer a moment or so ago, that the lan-
guage, "adjoining territories," is ironclad,
am I not correct in interpreting "territory"
to include territorial waters?
I know of no water that sits upon any-
thing other than territory or land in that
restricted sense, but that is a restricted
definition. Therefore, adjoining territory
would include territorial waters.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Let me
state this, as I understand it. The Chair-
man has stated that there is no body of
water, is that correct, Mr. Chairman, no
body of water —
THE CHAIRMAN: — that is not in-
cluded in any county. All county lines, not
all, but most county lines, go through the
center of rivers or other bodies of water.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Again I
am afraid we are getting into the hassle
we had last evening on the question of
adjoining, which I am doing my best to
avoid at the moment, and I suspect that
what Delegate Adkins is about to rise to
again.
The Supreme Court of the United States
had used the word "contiguous" hereto-
fore. I do not know whether or not under
that interpretation they jumped bodies of
water, but I suspect they probably did.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Would the
Chairman yield for a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: State the question.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Delegate Galla-
gher, you were quite helpful this morning
in clarifying certain problems which I and
my constituents had in connection with
3.02.
As some of the language in 3.02 is the
same, although slightly different as to the
language this proposed amendment con-
tains, in view of the fact that you gave
an explanation in 3.02 this morning, which
|
in some way slightly differs from the ex-
planation that you have given this after-
noon in connection with the proposed
amendment, may the record show that your
explanation of the language insofar as it
was used in 3.02, that is, the explanation
you gave this morning, is intended to control
3.02 without being buried by any potential
or possible conflict as a result of your ex-
planation in connection with the proposed
amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I
would agree that the explanation as given
this morning is the intention that the Com-
mittee had with respect to the use of the
word "adjoining" in 3.02.
To be consistent and without having to
consult with my Committee, and without
having consulted the other 20 sponsors on
this particular amendment, which someone
was kind enough to put my name at the
beginning of, I would say that, "adjoining"
would continue to be interpreted in the
same way that I interpreted it with respect
to 3.02.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: So that I am
really not trying to pinpoint any differences
in interpretation, because I think that might
only serve to confuse rather than to clarify.
All I would like to get is an affirmative
statement that what you said this morning
insofar as your then definition of the word
adjoining and compact, was intended to be
controlling insofar as the use of those
words in 3.02 is concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: May I ask
the Chairman a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: State your question.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Would the
Chairman be willing to take the sentence,
which seems to distress so many delegates,
out of the statement, the second sentence,
beginning with "each district shall consist
of adjoining territory and be compact in
form"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Delegate
Miller, I think that since I am only one of
|
