|
amendment will not be offered. At least,
that is what the Chair has been informed.
Any Delegate desire to speak in favor of
the recommendation?
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man and ladies and gentlemen of the
house: 1 should like to share with the
Committee of the Whole a story of an early
19th century Maryland lottery which in-
volved the authorization in 1804 by the
General Assembly for a lottery, the pur-
pose of which was to use the proceeds to
commence the construction of what is now
the oldest capital cathedral in North
America. After the lottery tickets were
duly sold and the drawing was held, it was
announced that the winner of the lottery
was the Archbishop of Baltimore, John
Carroll and that is a very effective way of
running a lottery, I might say. I rise
simply to say this. I do not think that this
is an issue that we ought to get over-
charged about or to emote a great deal
about, but my thinking about the matter
has changed somewhat over the past few
months and I do think the tendency of pub-
lic officials to lead people down the garden
path to believe that the fiscal panacea is
the lottery, is one to which we ought to
give some consideration. I believe the last
refuge of those who would delude the
people that they do not have to pay their
fair share of the taxes is the argument
that we should have a lottery. I think it
has been disproved here in the United
States. It is not the kind of thing that we
ought to let Maryland run headlong into.
I think it is the kind of decision that ought
to be made soberly and upon reflection and
I think with the rise in taxes and the ten-
dency of the people to look for an easy
way that this is too attractive. I submit
that in reality we ought to put this prohi-
bition in the Constitution because it does
mean that it could be accomplished through
a constitutional amendment, but it would
also mean that it would be done after con-
siderable reflection, thought and debate.
Now, I want to make this perfectly clear.
I do not care how the Court of Appeals
should decide the question of whether or
not a bingo is a lottery and for my own
part, it would make no difference whatso-
ever if the prohibition against the lottery
should be extended to include bingo. I
think the magnitude of the issue is far
greater than whether or not a church or a
fire department can use bingo to raise
money. I do not think anybody came down
here with a mandate from their fire depart-
ment or from their church to save bingo
|
and because of that, I am perfectly willing
to say that I support this Majority Re-
port. I intended to vote for it and I ask
those similarly situated to consider doing
likewise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, I noted in the preliminary material
prepared by the Constitutional Convention
Commission that the following relates to
testimony before the Committee that was
considering the lottery on August 15, 1966
and I would like to read excerpts from
that testimony, if I may.
The Committee took testimony on the lot-
tery question on August 15, 1966. It invited
Mr. Hyman Pressman, Comptroller of the
City of Baltimore and others.
The Committee also received a written
communication from Francis X. Gallagher,
Counsel for the Roman Catholic Diocese in
Maryland. Mr. Gallagher expressed no
opinion on merits but said it was the type
of thing that should be left to the state
legislature. I would assume that since then
Delegate Gallagher has changed his mind.
It seems to me that a vote for the Com-
mittee Recommendation requires a great
deal of knowledge about lotteries and that
members of this Convention have not had
access to knowledge one way or the other.
The question before us really is do we,
forever, prohibit lotteries in this State
with a constitutional ban. To make the de-
cision to prohibit lotteries requires evi-
dence, testimony and it is a controversial
question and I am not prepared to say
whether they are good or bad, but I say
we do not have the evidence before us to
make the prohibition. It seems to me that
this is strictly a legislative matter. It re-
quires witnesses, it is controversial and by
taking it out of the constitution, you leave
it for legislative determination. It is not
the apparent kind of evil obvious on the
face of it, a per se evil which should be
banned by the constitution. I urge you,
therefore, to leave this constitution silent
on the subject and let the legislature con-
sider it from time to time. After all, if you
vote to keep the ban in the constitution,
you are making a decision which we are
not qualified to make. By leaving it out of
the constitution, you permit the legislature
to do it with evidence and testimony.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
|
