|
fraud vitiates everything that it permeates
and I say that gambling contaminates
everything and everybody and every com-
munity, whether it is legal gambling or
illegal gambling, and I say that in my
opinion and as far as my vote goes, I sup-
port the recommendation of the Committee
to let the ban stay in the Constitution as
it has done for almost 150 years.
It would relieve the legislature from
being pestered by the gambling industry
that wants to muscle in and once they get
in, believe me, you will never get them out.
I am for the recommendation of the
Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
recommendation ?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the approval of
Committee Recommendation SF-2. A vote
Aye is a vote in favor of the approval of
the recommendation. A vote No is a vote
against the recommendation.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
The Clerk will record the vote.
Delegate Boyce, is your vote registered?
DELEGATE BOYCE: It is working
again, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was your vote re-
corded?
DELEGATE BOTHE: I am not sure.
THE CHAIRMAN: The chart shows you
as not voting.
DELEGATE BOTHE: My vote was
negative.
THE CHAIRMAN: It, will be .so re-
corded.
There being 75 votes in the affirmative
and 53 in the negative, the recommenda-
tion is approved.
The next item for consideration is Com-
mittee Recommendation SF-3.
|
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, the report on State Finance and
Taxation, SF-3, will be presented to the
Committee of the Whole by its Vice Chair-
man, Delegate Case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: 1 wonder if I
could ask the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to yield for a question. I
know it is a bit irregular and a bit out of
order, but I can assure you it will take
but just a few seconds because I want to
clarify something in my own mind about
what happened as to SF-2. I have to ask
unanimous consent to proceed out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the question.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Earlier, when
Delegate Gleason asked Chairman Sherbow
a question I had the distinct impression
that Delegate Sherbow said for the record
that in his opinion the colloquy and com-
ments and questions and answers on the
floor perhaps would not have too much
effect on the court's decision as they looked
to the intention of this body. This may not
be exactly what he said. It seems to me
that this would be the implication. I do not
recall whether you were in the chair or
not. At least I feel that I ought to raise
the issue so that it would be clarified, be-
cause throughout this discussion, at some
point some court may be looking to deter-
mine what the intent of the Convention
was and I think this is important. I ask
the Chairman if he does not concur in the
fact that what we do say and what the
questions are and answers are will have
some effect in determining the words that
we pass.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question posed
by Delegate Sickles is a little difficult for
the Chair to answer unless I construe the
question in its very narrow sense. The
question is that the statements of intent
by this Convention would have some in-
fluence on a determination of the court as
to the meaning of the words used. I think
that can undoubtedly be answered in the
affirmative but I do not think it is a true
answer to the question.
It will, indeed, have some influence, but
how much influence is another matter. I
think that the two principles which must
be borne in mind in considering this ques-
tion and which any court would undoubt-
edly keep in mind is that the intent of the
|
