|
tail for a state lottery to be operated under
the constitution, but I asked the Chairman
not to consider my proposal nor to put any-
thing into the constitution regarding lot-
tery because I know I fostered a bill for
State lottery for four years in the State
Legislature and in 1966 the very bill I
gave to the Chairman of the Committee was
passed by the House of Delegates by a con-
stitutional majority which indicated to me
from the letters I received from people
throughout the State that there were nu-
merous people who thought the State should
operate a lottery.
Now, Mr. President, if we put in a pro-
hibition as strong as the Committee has
brought out then I know that right off the
bat we have 50 percent of the people in the
State of Maryland against this constitution.
On the other hand, Mr. President, if it pro-
vides for a lottery, then we have a large
number mad at our constitution.
Mr. President, you have worked too
hard, I have worked too hard on this to
have a large segment of our population go
against our constitution just because of
one little joker in our constitution. I hope
that the Committee's recommendation will
fail and that the constitution will remain
silent as the Constitutional Convention
Commission left it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I yield five minutes to Delegate Fox.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman, and
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole: I am the culprit that intro-
duced the delegate proposal that Judge
Sherbow's Committee adopted, and was the
source of this language. I might say that
this came about as a result of a meeting
in Salisbury called by the Chamber of Com-
merce and attended by a rather large num-
ber of people, about the largest number of
people that questioned Delegate Adkins
and me before we came to the Convention.
The suggestion was made there that the
ban on lottery should be retained in the
constitution and I said at that time I
would be glad to look into it and inquire
about it a little bit and investigate it and
I felt inclined to introduce such a proposal.
The more I looked into it and I submit
that if the members of the Committee of
the Whole would just take the time to read
this report on legalized gambling that was
prepared by Mr. Howard Bregel, a promi-
nent Baltimore Jawyer, who was interested
|
in the matter and had the report prepared,
I think you would come to the same con-
clusion that I did, that it should be in the
constitution not only because it is there
now, but that is the significant point right
now. It is there now. If we take it out
after this debate, what are we saying to
the legislature and what are we saying to
the people of Maryland? The people of
Maryland, as Judge Sherbow indicated, re-
jected this idea of legalizing lotteries in a
referendum back in 1938. And so far as I
know nothing has changed their opinion.
Delegate Koss touched on a very sig-
nificant thing and that is if the State of
Maryland should resort to lottery as a
source of revenue, the people of Maryland
do not have an opportunity to reject it by
a referendum, because it is a tax matter
and they do not have an opportunity to
reject it by a referendum. Therefore, if we
really believe that a lottery is a stupid
thing, it is not a question of morality, a
question of good or bad, it is just a ques-
tion of good common sense. It did not work
in Maryland in colonial times, it does not
work in New York today, it does not work
in New Hampshire. It is just a matter of
good common sense. There is no reason to
think it is going to work in Maryland as a
tax raising measure any time in the future.
The difficulty is that we are so anxious to
take the tax burden off our shoulders that
we grasp at any straw. We hear people
misrepresent facts and try to indicate that
a lottery will solve tax problems and we
clutch at it only to find out, as Maryland
found out, as New York is finding out and
as New Hampshire is finding out, that it
does not do the job.
I would hate to see the finances of the
State of Maryland in such deplorable con-
dition as I believe they would be if they
depended in any significant measure on
lotteries and I think it is just good common
sense not to have them.
If it were passed as a revenue measure
the people would not be able to vote on it.
They could not pass on it by referendum,
then I think it is time to place the ban in
the constitution.
I realize attempts have been made to
ridicule it with little corny humor and I
do not know that I can compete with the
ploughboy from Hyattsville but I do say to
you sincerely that I think in view of the
fact that it is in our Constitution and in
states' constitutions that it would dras-
tically affect the state's finances, that it is
a serious matter and a matter of constitu-
tional proportion.
|
