|
ests will show they will expect the legisla-
ture to listen to their pleas that we should
grant these lottery opportunities to nice
people which we believe will give them the
opportunity to muscle in and take over.
We know the very serious situation that
has developed in some parts of Maryland
where slot machines came into effect, and
with all the power and prestige of the
State of Maryland acting with all of the
energy commanded by the Honorary Presi-
dent of this Convention and until recently
Governor of Maryland, all of this effort
was required to phase out what the rest
of the State felt was an evil influence, this
whole lottery picture.
We believe that we will he relieving the
legislature of the turmoil and pressure, the
constant effort to have the legislature let
down the bars, lower them and grant these
people the right to operate.
You now have a new situation. You have
a situation where local subdivisions, unless
restrained by the legislature, will have the
right to operate lotteries. Now, we have
asked you to consider this from this point
of view. How can the legislature having
the power to grant lotteries and permits
say: we will grant lottery permits and not
strike down the phase-out of gambling
through the slot machine in the southern
counties of Maryland. If you are going to
grant the lotteries, their argument is going
to be, why not leave what you intended to
strike out?
If the lottery ban is continued in the
Constitution, we relieve the legislature of
this kind of pressure. The legislative leaders
have given no indication that they want the
power or the right to grant lotteries or
lottery permits. They made their positions
clear, I believe you will hear from one of
them. I know you will hear today with re-
spect to the views of the General Assembly.
Now, we do not believe that the lottery
situation is an isolated and emotional issue
and here I am using some of the words of
a minority report, because other forms of
gambling are permitted. Let me discuss
with you the fallacy of that argument. Our
Committee voted, I think it was 10 to 4 to
put this restraint, this ban into the Consti-
tution with only one abstention. We had
before us the proposal dealing with the
whole idea.
We also had before us another proposal
offered by three delegates which went into
great detail suggesting how lotteries should
be operated, who should get the benefits
and the money from them in the form of a
|
page and a half of statutory language
about how to operate the lottery and who
should and how you get the benefits from it.
And we also had from another delegate
who will speak here today a proposal out
of which our report and recommendation
was distilled, namely no more lottery
grants and no more opportunities for the
State to permit them because they will be
restrained by the constitutional prohibition.
At the hearing we heard the argument
that if you put in this restraint against
lotteries there will thereupon be a restraint
also against bingo. We heard the arguments
that also if you listened and read carefully
what has been in the Constitution, all it
said was: there shall be no lottery grants
by the State.
All of this has been set to rest by the
statutory law of this State and by opinions
of the attorney general. A long time ago,
more than 30 years ago, the attorney gen-
eral ruled that the present provision in the
Constitution prohibits the State from au-
thorizing a lottery to be operated either by
the State or by an individual, so that the
language means neither the State nor an
individual could operate a lottery, and this
has not been challenged or attacked since
1935, and no lottery has been granted.
Thereafter, the subject arose as to
whether or not bingo is legal. Bingo is op-
erated by reason of the fact that the State
of Maryland through the General Assembly
has granted under the criminal statutes,
under its present laws, a distinction saying
that bingo is not a crime and, therefore,
they passed a statute in which they regu-
lated bingo.
Prior to that, there had been three opin-
ions of the attorney general of Maryland,
each of them dealing with the subject of
these bingo statutes and each of them hold-
ing that the question before them was one
that dealt with a valid statute, namely,
the right to operate bing-o under the law.
On the subject of whether or not these
matters are proper for our legislature to
determine the argument is made that if you
operate bingo and the pari-mutuel tracks,
why don't you operate the lotteries by the
State?
My answer is simply this, that under the
statutes, the public policy of this State has
been, that on these fire engine volunteer
areas of the bingo operation, on these small
minor church operations, as long as they
keep within the statute, they have con-
strued them as not being a lottery.
|
