|
they were concerned, they were treated not
as a tax but as a means of building either
a swimming pool or some golf course or
something of that sort. They did not have
to worry about it as a tax. I was dealing
solely with a political subdivision.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I suppose the
point the Judge is making is that the State
might treat it either way. If it were treated
as a tax, if a referendum was attempted
and the Court of Appeals said it was a
tax then I suppose under the provisions
that are being offered later, it would not be
subject to referendum. It would not be
necessary to treat it that way.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: I suggest that the
language of the exception in the referen-
dum article is slightly broader than tax. I
think it says appropriation, which it would
seem to me might logically include the pur-
poses for which a lottery were enacted.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I would think the
word "tax" would come much closer than
appropriation if it comes close at all.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Price.
DELEGATE DUKES: That is just the
man I was waiting to hear from.
DELEGATE PRICE: Thank you very
much, my friend, Delegate Dukes. You
mentioned among other things that the
legislature if this is included in the Con-
stitution would not be free to deal with
the problems as they arise and I want to
submit that this may be true in other
areas, too, that the legislature will not be
free to deal with problems as they arise
and I just want to make a few observa-
tions of my own.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Price, this is a time for questions.
DELEGATE PRICE: Well, sir, I was
wondering about that, too.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
I should like to remind the group that we
have 30 minutes of controlled time for both
sides, so please confine this to questions.
DELEGATE PRICE: I will withhold my
questions and observations until such time
|
although I noticed that the good Delegate
Sherbow has objected to some questions,
not only questions but some debates and
there have cropped up here more than just
questions so if we can move —
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
If you have a legitimate question, now is
the time to ask it.
DELEGATE PRICE: Well, sir, I do
have a legitimate question but it is wrapped
up with some other things so I will just
wait.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any other questions at this time?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: One question, if
I may. Is it not conceivable that the state
legislature if this were to be removed from
the Constitution could pass a statute which
could prevent individual lotteries but
simply permit the State to have a lottery
for its own benefit.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I would think if
it were not contained in the Constitution
that the legislature could do whatever it
wished.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Armor, do you still have a
question?
DELEGATE ARMOR: Delegate Dukes
offered to read one of these very small
clippings. If one of the pages will take it
to him I will appreciate it if he will read it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: If I understand
your question, Delegate Armor, it is
whether or not I can read.
(Laughter.)
This says, The Washington Post, Wednes-
day the 10th of August, I believe, 1967.
It says, "Albany, New York. Sales of
lottery tickets fell to $4,125,698 in July, a
decrease of more than $2.3 million from
June's sales and far below a hoped for $30
million monthly total.
"Sales of the $1 tickets totaled $6,447,605
in June, the first month of the State's new
ventures, aimed at aid for education."
Is that a satisfactory answer to your
question?
|
