|
implication, keeping in mind, of course,
that we have to put the prohibition in posi-
tively, that that implication could be im-
pressed upon the Court of Appeals so that
their decision would be reversed with re-
spect to the bingo?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, the way
in which we sought to do it very simply
was this: the lotteries that we were hoping
would have the restraint by constitutional
actions were lotteries as we understood
them, those that had been in operation in
Maryland in the days before the Constitu-
tion said no more; lotteries as they oper-
ate them today in New Hampshire, lot-
teries as they operate them today in the
State of New York.
We have before us, and I would like the
record to show, we have before us the opin-
ion of the attorney general in 1935 which
held that the State not only could not give
a lottery grant, but likewise the State it-
self could not engage in lottery.
We accepted that as a law. We have be-
fore us a discussion of the subject of the
church bingo and it was perfectly clear to
us, and I repeat it for the record, we were
making no effort whatsoever to include
bingo as it is presently operated in Mary-
land within any lottery ban.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Delegate Sher-
bow, it is not that aspect of it that bothers
me. It is the reverse of that conclusion.
The reverse is I take it you made a
positive effort to have it excluded and that's
the thing that bothers me.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Have what
excluded?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Bingo.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, just the
opposite, we exclude bingo from the defini-
tion of lottery. We are not excluding bingo
from operating. If the legislature chooses
in its wisdom to keep bingo within the
present statute, we want this prohibition
against lottery not to affect it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow,
I think you misunderstood Delegate Glea-
son's question. I think he meant was your
positive intention to exclude bingo from
being within the purview of the word lot-
tery. Is that your question, Delegate
Gleason?
(Delegate Gleason nodded his axncnt.)
|
DELEGATE S H K R B O W : That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Further question,
Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That has been
so upheld.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Don't you
think we are getting on fairly dangerous
ground here in attempting to in effect fore-
close a judicial decision as to what a lottery
is and is not by your discussion within the
Committee that bingo should be excluded
from a lottery? Suppose the State put on
or authorized a bingo contest throughout
the State. I take it by your definition that
that would not be a lottery.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: What I am
saying to you, Delegate Gleason, is simply
this: that our definition of lottery is lottery
as it is generally understood. We have be-
fore us two opinions. One by Judge Sachs
of this county, the other by Judge Evans
of this county, each in this particular ease
holding that bingo was not by definition
lottery.
So far as we were concerned, we were
accepting that definition. Bingo is not lot-
tery. Now there is pending on appeal in
the Court of Appeals that same question.
If the Court of Appeals should decide that
bingo is lottery, then, of course, this is an-
other situation. All we are attempting to
do is say by definition we do not include
bingo in our minds with lottery.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: It is precisely
the Court of Appeals decision that is
bothering me with respect to your comment
because if by your comment it can be im-
pressed upon the Court of Appeals the Con-
stitutional Convention drafters have ex-
cluded this from the definition it coerces
their decision. We would be on safe ground,
I think, if we leave it at what it has tra-
ditionally been and let the word stand for
whatever it is interpreted by the courts.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would ask
what were the discussions before us, what
were their intentions? Delegate Gleason,
after I suppose almost a lifetime in the
courts and at the bar, I can assure you
that there is not anything you or I are
going to say that will coerce the Court of
Appeals in any decision it will make. It
will make it not on what we say or do
here but on the briefs and records in the
case then before it. That case presents a
very narrow issue. I do not want to dis-
cuss the case because they may never get
|
