|
l_ -J
a hearing one time I do not smoke, I do
not drink, even coffee, I do not gamble, as
a matter of fact I do not even fool around
with the girls —
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Do you tell
the truth?
(Laughter.)
DELEGATE DUKES: Whenever it
serves my purpose, Delegate Gallagher. I
have that in common with the majority.
As I was saying, I suppose I am something
of a prude. I do not favor a lottery and I
am sure if I were in the General Assembly
I would vote against it, but I came down
here to write a constitution. I do not think
that this is any time or place for us to de-
cide what is good or bad for the people of
the State of Maryland on specific issues.
It is not a broad principle. It is not an
item that we need to be concerned about.
It would seem to me almost ludicrous that
one of the nation's great horse racing states would stand up on its hind legs and
cry how sanctimonious we are. We pro-
hibit lottery in the State of Maryland. We
have done it before and I do not see that
that is any reason to do it again and I
think at this point it is time to clean up the
constitution a little. Let us stop putting all
his trash in and let us put in only those
things that are broad principles and leave
this little provision out.
I have one final word. I recall that Judge
Sherbow said as he opened, it was only
twelve little words. He is right. I also re-
call that it was rumored that Adolf Hit-
ler, as he commenced his invasion said,
"Destroy Russia".
(Vice-President James Clark assumed the
Chair.)
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any questions of the minority
spokesman? The Chair recognizes Delegate
Hostetter.
DELEGATE HOSTETTER: I think it is
only fair to tell this group something, Dele-
gate Dukes. Ten years ago Delegate Dukes
was a rising law student at Duke Uni-
versity and happened to be my business law
professor at that time and, professor, your
lectures are as good as ever.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Scanlan.
|
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Delegate
Dukes, maybe you could clarify for me and
some of the others in the chamber an issue
that remains unclarified.
The first issue is this, shall we put some-
thing in the constitution to prohibit the
General Assembly and the political sub-
divisions from conducting a lottery, what-
ever a lottery is, leaving that aside for a
minute, either by itself or having a private
group conduct that lottery for the State
or for the political subdivision. Now, that
is a closer issue. But in the questions put
to Judge Sherbow, another issue loomed,
whether or not the language suggested by
the majority if adopted as part of the con-
stitution would place in the hands of the
Court of Appeals the right to strike down
private lotteries, again whatever they may
be, not getting to the definition of lottery.
I know a number of questions were directed
to Judge Sherbow on this point but he
seemed to have a cork for every hole and
I never really got the clear intention of
the Committee. Was it by this language,
even though you disagree with it, Mr.
Dukes, and therefore I suppose your views
would be so much prejudiced, in your opin-
ion would the language of the majority if
adopted by the Convention and put into
the constitution, would it prohibit lotteries,
whatever lotteries are, lotteries conducted
by private groups as opposed to lotteries
conducted by the State or its political sub-
divisions or was this discussed at all in
your meetings?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: We discussed
generally the area about which you ques-
tioned. My memory was not as good as it
might have been, but I understood Judge
Sherbow to say directly and without equiv-
ocation that although the intention of the
Committee plainly was not to include bingo,
it was the intention of the Committee to
include for the State, for all of its political
subdivisions and for any type of private
operation be it an association, group, or-
ganization or an individual, the prohibition
against lotteries, whatever that might be
as determined by the Court of Appeals. In
fairness I think I should add he reiterated
time and time again that in his opinion he
felt the consensus of the committee opinion
was that bingo as currently operated
throughout the State would not be so classi-
fied by the Court of Appeals but if it were
it and all other forms of money raising by
private groups if found to be lotteries by
the Court of Appeals would be barred by
the prohibition before us.
|
