|
more wide-open in this respect than about
.any other comparable country. This, in it-
self, would be objectionable to many people,
but what is worse is the close and growing
connection between gaming clubs and or-
ganized crime, often violent crime in Lon-
don and other big cities."
I am not a prophet of doom. The lan-
guage used by the minority in which they
say that they do not believe we need fear
any such influx, I say to you is answered
not by me but by those who are experienc-
ing it today.
Now, we have to face this problem. If
we take this out of the Constitution, what
will its effects be? I do not go back now
in history more than four weeks.
The State of Rhode Island has a Consti-
tutional Convention in session. Unlike ours,
it is open ended. It has been going on for
a couple of years.
They came up with their proposal; in
their proposal they did what the minority
asks us to do, to take out the restraint on
lottery. That proposal, that Constitution
was to be submitted to the voters of Rhode
Island four weeks ago tomorrow on No-
vember 7, 19(57.
They withdrew that constitutional pro-
posal in its entirety from the voters of
Rhode Island because the whole constitu-
tion faced defeat in toto and the major
reason for it was the elimination from
the constitution for Rhode Island of this
restriction on lottery.
Let me read you from the Providence
Journal of September 17, 19(>7, from its
editorial: "The proposed constitution also
eliminates an existing ban on the running
of state lotteries and if the draft is ap-
proved, every voter in Rhode Island can ex-
pect to see a dozen different bills before
the legislature as soon as possible to put
the state into the gambling business in
spite of the unhappy experiences of New
York and New Hampshire."
Then they went on to say in the editorial,
and I quote, "With reluctance but with firm
conviction the Journal Bulletin recommends
rejection of the proposed new State Consti-
tution at the special election, November 7.
''The good in the draft, and there is
much that is good, that is very good, is
outweighed by the bad/'
Then the power of this giant known as
the public began to make itself felt and so
Governor Chaffee of the State of Rhode
Island likewise said that the greatest con-
|
cern that lie has in this proposed Consti-
tution of Rhode Island is this subject of
lotteries and the subject of wire tapping.
On November the 6, 1967, they withdrew
the entire proposal from the people, rather
than face complete defeat.
Now, I think you have a right to ask me
this question: suppose this particular pro-
posal of our Committee's is defeated? What
would you do?
My answer to you is very simple. I have
been working so far as this Constitution is
concerned since 1930. My first published
article was on October 30, 1930. That is a
long time ago.
I will take the good with the bad and
wherever I am invited, I will be there try-
ing to put over all of the whole proposal,
but I ask you this now in advance: ought
you to put this kind of a lead burden on
this constitution by taking out what has
been in every Constitution of Maryland, by
failing to profit by the experience of Rhode
Island, by being unwilling to believe what
has happened in other areas where it has
failed to financially relate and where as it
has in England, these persons who predict
that it will not do anything about the cor-
ruption and the present gambling which is
unlawful, but that it will bring within it-
self worse evils. These are the situations
for you to consider, and we hope most
earnestly that you will vote for our recom-
mendation, which is a vote to keep the
restriction, the restraint on lotteries in the
constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the Committee Chairman for pur-
poses of clarification?
Delegate Scanlan?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Judge Sher-
bow, apart from the extension of the pres-
ent constitutional prohibition to the politi-
cal subdivisions whereas in the present
Constitution it applies to the General As-
sembly only, is there any intention on the
part of your Committee to broaden the
prohibition against lotteries?
For example, the present prohibition says
"no lottery grant shall ever hereafter be
authorized by the General Assembly."
Your suggested language which says
"lotteries shall not be sanctioned by the
State", leaves aside the political subdivi-
sions. I understand your point there. Is it
your intention by the language suggested
in there to broaden the concept of the lot-
teries? For example, a lottery grant to my
|
