|
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, I suggest,
Delegate Penniman, that you have your
secretary make a note of that particular
phrase as indicating the meaning of the
intention.
Delegate Dukes, before we begin the
period of controlled debate, the Chair is
not clear as to whether you intend to sug-
gest merely disapproval of this recom-
mendation or whether you intend to pro-
pose an amendment. If the latter it should
be offered at this time.
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: We intend to rec-
ommend disapproval. There will be no
recommendation whatsoever.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Mr. Chairman,
recognizing as we do the shadow of dark-
ness in which we work we will attempt to
present a very diversified field. We will
start off by yielding three minutes to that
screaming delegate from Baltimore, Dele-
gate Bothe.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Fellow delegates,
I feel vastly honored at the introduction
and the opportunity to be the first person
on this floor to argue in favor of the
Minority Report understanding that we had
a very objective presentation on both sides
along with questions only intended to se-
cure enlightenment up to this point. How-
ever, I am going to argue very narrowly.
I am not going to say which side of evil or
good I happen to be on or express what
views I may have on lottery.
Frankly, I have none. Perhaps rather
than as a screaming liberal, Delegate Dukes
called on me as a member of the Constitu-
tional Convention Commission. We did not
have anywhere near as much fun discuss-
ing the subject because we narrowed down
our consideration purely to the issue of
whether the subject matter belongs in the
constitution and readily determined that it
did not.
Now, I suggest to you, fellow delegates,
that the question of a ban on lottery is
merely one which would tie the hands of
the legislature and in a very strange way.
I have been serving on the Committee on
Personal Rights and Preamble during the
last few weeks and we devoted a great
deal of discussion to the restrictions that
should be placed on legislative action that
|
might offend the people. Here we are in
the strange position of protecting the legis-
lature from the people. Certainly this is
not the area in which the constitution
should deal in any respect. I am willing to
gamble here and take a chance on a mature
constitution and I suggest that all of us
leave this kind of matter out, make the
legislature stand up to its responsibilities
and make the kind of determinations which
we are here to make, whether we are going to have a state lottery or not g-oing to have
it, whatever it means. Incidentally, if we
adopt the language with the construction
which Delegate Sherbow has said goes with
it, we are g-oing far beyond the present
constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-
quarter minute, Deleg-ate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I would not think
in 1967 we have to be so much more
moralistic than they were in 1807.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I yield five
minutes to Delegate James.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, I would like to direct
my remarks to the general proposition that
a prohibition against the lottery should be
in the constitution and to initiate these re-
marks I would like to read a statement I
filed with the Committee, a memorandum to
the State Finance Committee on "Financ-
ing Government by Lottery."
I advocate inclusion in the constitution
of a prohibition against financing govern-
mental expenditures by lottery. As a course
of conduct, g-ambling-, however fascinating-,
has two basic flaws: (1) Its attraction is
the concept of something for nothing-. (2)
It takes from the many and g-ives to the
few. The State should not play upon human
weakness to finance its expenditures. Nor
should it promote a false economics in the
name of taxation.
Entirely aside from the basic impropriety
of state financing by games of chance, ex-
perience shows that gambling is an unre-
liable source of revenue. New Hampshire
and New York are now face to face witli
this hard fact. The fiasco of reliance upon
lottery revenues by state government is
most evident in New York. So disappoint-
ing are the results that New York is con-
templating an ignoble promotion of chance
taking at the expense of the poor and the
gullible.
|
