|
All that Delegate Case and I and all the
rest were trying to say was that whatever
you put in as a pre-constitutional require-
ment to the validity of a law bear in mind
that the Court of Appeals can make these
decisions based on its interpretation of
what took place.
That's what it was. I think it is totally
irrelevant, Delegate Gleason, to what we
are talking about here for only this reason.
Bingo is something that we have had in
Maryland now for, I don't know how
many years. We have a legislative enact-
ment which says this is how you shall op-
erate bingo. That has never been chal-
lenged. Only recently somebody raised the
point that they ought to get their money
back. In the course of that discussion they
said this bingo really is a lottery. Two
judges in the lower court said no, it is
not so. It is now before the Court of
Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I would sug-
gest to you, sir, that your recital of the
facts of the case did not go far enough.
If you recall the opinion of the Court of
Appeals of which the presiding officer was
good enough to send a copy to me, he men-
tioned that that time had reference to the
fact a deliberate attempt was made in that
Convention to overturn that requirement
and it was turned down. The Court of Ap-
peals put a particular emphasis on this act.
What I am suggesting to you is that it'
we here, in deciding upon the inclusion of
this particular recommendation of the ma-
jority of the Committee, state positively
that within our vote lotteries shall not in-
clude bingo, that is a substantive part of
the action as it goes forward, then it could
have some weight on the Court in the
future. This is why I want to get it clear.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I cannot make
it any clearer than this. We on the Com-
mittee did not intend that lottery should
include bingo. We did intend that lottery
shall not include bingo.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: 1 am sorry to
hear that, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman, inasmuch as you have told us
here time and time again that the Court
of Appeals might construe lottery as one
thing and at another time it would not con-
|
strue it as a lottery, and that we do not
know what the future holds, is it not true
that what your proposal really means is
that lotteries shall not be sanctioned by the
State, acquiesced in by the State, or its
political subdivisions except by rule of
court or opinion of the attorney general?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, that is.
not what I suggest.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Judge Sherbow,,
would you have any objection to substitut-
ing for the Committee's report on lotteries
the language that is in the old Constitu-
tion? This seems that this may be the an-
swer to all the questions that have been
raised because whatever is in the old Con-
stitution has already been tested by law.
Would you answer that, Judge, please.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I can only
answer this way, Delegate Raley, that the
old constitutional provision states that no
lottery grant shall ever hereafter be au-
thorized by the General Assembly. It would
not be applicable today because of the pro-
visions relating to the local governments.
We are now in position where you could not
write it that way. Of course, if the opinion
of the attorney general is accepted that lot-
tery grant means what he decided that it
was, then insofar as the State is concerned,
this would he applicable. But as to political
subdivisions this would not be enough. They
would have the right to operate their own
lotteries.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, do I understand that it is the inten-
tion of your Committee that if the State
of Maryland decided that it wanted to raise
some revenue by the operation of a state-
wide bingo game, it could do so.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: All I am say-
ing to you is that as of the present time,
if the State of Maryland were to decide
that it wanted to operate a statewide bingo
game, it would not be prohibited by the
present provisions of the State Constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger,
I suggest to you we have confused judicial
interpretations of statutes which prohibit
particular types of gambling or regulate
particular types of gambling and a prohi-
bition against the State or as the Commit-
tee suggests any political subdivision fi-
nancing itself by gambling.
I take it the answer to my question would
have to be yes. What you are saying de-
|
