|
and political corruption. This is $72,000,000
a year — more than four times what we?
get from real and personal property taxes
— more than four times what insurance
companies pay the State; nearly six times
the tax on all horse racing, more than one
half as much as sales taxes; more than
one half as much as the entire federal re-
ceipts. It is enough to cover one-third of
the entire public educational budget and
nearly as much as we allow for the state's
public welfare program. Suppose a future
legislature devised a plan to use this public
welfare program. $72 million for cancel-
research or refining heart transplanting
surgery techniques? Would we want it said
that we put this notable project beyond its
grasp by constitutional bungling?
Frankly, I think we are suckers. Why
continue to give up our rich source of
revenue to the racketeers? We do not know
what is up ahead for our State. If we add
on to our constitution the prohibition of
horse racing as we do lottery, we would
lose $12,000,000. Imagine our giving; up the
income from our race tracks. I say leave
the whole matter to the General Assembly.
Finally, this prohibition should not he
imbedded into the fundamental law of the
State — tying the hands of future legis-
lators. They may wish to consider such
programs in the future and in the light,
of changing circumstances. Then, if they
need to, and public support of a lottery may
be mobilized, it is too difficult to change
once it has gone into the constitution. The
laborious process of adding1 constitutional
amendments must follow. They must win
at every step, and we know a racket-backed
minority can block it. The minority can
thus rule and control.
The best constitution for the future is
not what should be added, but what should
be left out. Leave out now provisions which
might prohibit the legislature from legislat-
ing. There is no constitutional prohibition
against fraud, prostitution, use of narcotics,
betting on horses and other sins — why
just lottery?
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, let me say in the begin-
ning of my remarks that I frankly cannot
agree with the interpretation of this pro-
hibition that the Chairman of the Com-
mittee put on, but I do believe that if the
prohibition stays in the constitution, that
if the legislature then excludes certain ac-
tivities as not being lotteries, it really is up
|
to the Court of Appeals to determine
whether that standard is met or not. With
that understanding, I rise in support of
the majority Committee Recommendation.
I think there isn't any question that we
all would agree that we are living in a
time of changing values. I thing that we
are faced here with an issue that reflects
in many ways considerations of changing
values in connection with this proposition
of gambling or no gambling in the State.
1 think also the issue is really funda-
mentally clear for us. That issue is if this
prohibition is excluded from the Constitu-
tion and if — I think this is a big if —
this constitution is thereafter approved by
the voters, I would submit that within two
years of this date this State will have a
state lottery passed by the legislature of
Maryland. It will be on the statute books.
Then I think the question must be asked
in each of our minds tonight if within less
than four years after this State has paved
the way for the abolition of slot machines
we here facilitate a state lottery in this
State, whether we have not put this con-
stitution in jeopardy. Much is said in the
argument about freeing the hands of the
legislature to do its will. I had always as-
sumed the function of government, legis-
lature being one of those branches, was to
do the public good and advance the public
good. I do think that it is something that
each delegate here has to answer in his own
mind as to whether a statewide lottery is a
public good. I submit with humility, that
as far as I am concerned, I do not think
it is a public good.
I think that we should remember vividly
the tensions and strains that were existing
in this State in 1901, 1962 and 1963 when
the slot machines were finally abolished in
Maryland. I think we have to ask ourselves
whether we want to go through that kind
of battle again.
There is another aspect of the problem
that I think deserves consideration, that is
what we have already voted on to share
the powers of government with local gov-
ernment. We will have a state lottery on
the statute books in two years and will we
then be in any position to stop any com-
munity in the State of Maryland from
putting in slot machines or any kind of
g-ambling that the mind of man can con-
ceive? I doubt it. That is the issue you
are faced with. I hope you support the
majority recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
|
