|
fact that by this removal it now means
that the political subdivisions may engage
in this same practice. I thought we had
brought to your attention the fact that in
addition to this the evils which follow by
reason of what has happened elsewhere
are of such a nature that you ought to
leave what you have got and keep it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Then I
take it that you do not propose any test for
constitutionally prohibited evil?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Not I, no.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I wonder if 1
could just go over this with you once more,
while Mr. Scanlan is in the room, and per-
haps will put it to rest for all time. I un-
derstood you to say in response to his
questions that if the Court of Appeals
ruled that bingo in fact was a lottery, that
under the recommendation of the Commit-
tee that would be included within the defi-
nition of lottery.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That is true.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I further un-
derstood you to say that it was the Com-
mittee's intention, too, that in voting upon
this inclusion within the Constitution, lot-
tery would not include the enterprise known
as bingo and it would further definitely ex-
clude the enterprise known as bingo.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: The Commit-
tee answered it, as 1 understand it, this
way: with all the decisions, with all the
attorney general opinions and with the law
as we understood it, bingo was not by defi-
nition lottery. Therefore, they did not in-
tend to exclude bingo. But you have asked
the question. Suppose the Court of Appeals
does decide that it is lottery. If our pro-
posal includes the word lottery and it is
included within it, then bingo would be in-
cluded. We think not, based on all of the
available law which we have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Well, Judge
Sherbow, this is a very important area of
thinking. Two clays ago on this floor you
stood up when the legislative recommenda-
tion was before this group and you cited
a case of the Court of Appeals that had
thrown out a very substantial program on
the basis that a bill had not been re-
corded in the journal. In that case, as you
|
will recall, the Court of Appeals resorted
to the constitutional debate of 1867. They
recited the intention of the discussion that
went on with respect to the meaning that
was to apply and the validity that was
applied to that particular item.
The question becomes very important,
it seems to me, here. What do we intend to
be included within the term lottery? If the
courts will rule in the future by referring1
to this discussion of the issue in the Con-
stitutional Convention as they have in the
past, with respect to the issue that was
before us the other day, I would suggest
to you, sir, that our intention may have
some relevance to their decision and may
carry some weight with what to expect. I
think it should be very clearly spelled out
as to what the meaning of this word is
when we vote upon it.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: May I come
back to what you were talking about with
respect to what occurred the other day? I
think you ought to know that I was the
judge who decided that this was a very
simple situation. Here was a $50 million
bond issue for schools. The Constitution
said that on the final roll call there had to
be an Aye and Nay vote recorded. Some
clerk reached behind him and took down
HB-432, when he should have taken down
SB-432. It was as simple an error as that.
When the General Assembly had adjourned
and the governor had signed the bill, it
then became known that where it should
have been HB-432 it was SB-432 and there-
fore the recording of the vote did not re-
flect that the law had passed.
When the matter came before me, it came
before me in this posture. State of Mary-
land could not issue the $50 million of
bonds and so lawyers were employed to
test this out. As a judge I said this could
not be for one very simple reason. Let's get
the facts. When we got the facts in the
case, it turned out that what did happen
was that this error had taken place. Some-
body tried to correct one part of it. There-
fore, I ruled that the bond issue had been
legally passed. But when it got to the
Court of Appeals, they said, we do not
know whether you had a right to bring in
this evidence or not bring it in but we do
know this, the Constitution says the Aye
and Nay votes have to be recorded. The
Aye vote in the Senate or the House, I do
not know which, is on SB-432, not HB-432,
and we are not going any further. This
was the constitutional requirement, and
they therefore, threw out the whole bond
issue.
|
