|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, indeed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Then it is per-
fectly clear that this proposal means not
to include bingo within the definition of lot-
tery, sir?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Bingo as we
now understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Sher-
bow, you spoke of a period in Maryland's
history when lotteries were held in an un-
satisfactory and improper manner. When
was that period?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That whole
history goes back to the days up until the
middle 1820's and then continued until the
legislature could finally extricate itself
from what had developed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Sher-
bow, you also indicated that you had some
fear of the local subdivisions possibly tak-
ing advantage if we removed the prohibi-
tion, but do you not anticipate as many of
us do that the legislature will very likely
go into special session immediately after
the adoption of this constitution and at that
time they could take such steps as may be
necessary to prohibit the local subdivisions
from carrying out a lottery?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Well, my an-
swer, Delegate Johnson, is simply this. The
legislature may decide no. What is good for
a State to run may be good for a city or
county and why not do it?
I can give you one example of this ac-
tually occurring. It frightens me when I
think of it, but there were some of us who
were quite eager to provide some money for
the poor during the depth of the depression
in 1035 and 193G. All the tax proposals
were turned down by the General Assem-
bly. On the last night they passed a tax
on off-track betting and made this an ex-
ception to gambling restrictions. Within a
few days the gamblers had come to Balti-
more from many big cities and were hiring
|
the Palace Theater; when that hit the
public knowledge, I think then the public
woke up.
I think the reaction was just like a can-
non boom in this room and within less than
ten days Governor Nice vetoed that bill.
The legislature passed it the last minute.
Governor Nice vetoed it and I think there-
after we had other taxes to take its place.
All I can say to you is that the legisla-
ture may not act the way you think they
may, and this is possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: You do not
mean to imply that the members of the un-
derworld, the Mafia, as you put it, are cur-
rently lobbying to eliminate the prohibition
of the lottery from our Constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, I would
not say that, but I will tell you what I will
predict, that if you do eliminate the pro-
hibition by whatever name they are called,
and I do not know what is the correct name
for them, within less than the next ten or
15 years, you could write the article about
England and just change the name. Here
again you have touched me on a subject I
know. In 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952, I think
I knew about as much as there was to
know sitting where I was in criminal court
about the corruption that came. When I
was there it almost reached up to the top
until the Supreme Court granted it — well,
anyway the top man got out. I am saying
to you, it does happen. It can happen. I am
not a prophet of doom as I repeat, but it
could happen here. I hope it never does. I
hope we do not give them the chance.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE GLEASON: I am a little
bit disturbed by your answers to Delegate
Scanlan's question and I wonder if I could
explore it.
As I understand it, the Committee did
not attempt to define what was or what
was not a lottery, is that correct?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Did the Com-
mittee attempt to put an implication of
what was a lottery to the extent that its
|
