|
Committee of the Whole and of the dele-
gates expressed in debates as to the pur-
pose of the provision under consideration
or of the language used is indeed entitled
to great weight but the court must also
consider the fact that the people in voting
on the adoption of the constitution are
entitled to assume that ordinary words are
used in their ordinary meaning and that
this cannot necessarily be controlled com-
pletely by statements of intent of the dele-
gates to the Convention as to the meaning they intended.
I think, therefore, the question is easy to
answer to say that some effect will be
given to the statements on the floor. I
think it is very difficult to formulate any
statement as to how much effect and
whether it will be given overriding effect.
I think it is almost impossible for anyone
to say. Let me say, also, and I assume in
addressing this question to the Chair you
are asking only for a personal opinion of
the Chair. I have no ability to give any
kind of an official opinion to this question
and I am sure you understand.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I think the
Chair is responding and I am perfectly
satisfied with your explanation.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Case to present Committee
Recommendation SF-3.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Delegate
Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: In explaining;
the procedure that would be open after we
came back from the dinner hour, you said
it would be possible after the vote on the
Commission Recommendation that a motion
for reconsideration could be offered and
the applicant for the motion for recon-
sideration could explain the purpose of
the motion for reconsideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is true.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I would like
now to move that the vote be reconsidered.
I have not in my possession the specific
motion that I would like to offer but I
have seen it. Specifically as I understand
the situation, we have adopted the Com-
mission Recommendation which was
changed orally during the discussion and
was never read back by the Chair. I do not
know exactly what I voted on.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: You said Commis-
sion Recommendation. You mean Commit-
tee Recommendation.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Committee
Recommendation.
What we passed is that lotteries shall
not be authorized by the State or its
political subdivisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: In the dis-
cussion of that amendment there were
those of us, I think, that thought that
only meant that the State and political
subdivisions would be barred from au-
thorizing lotteries to be conducted by the
State or the political subdivisions.
There were others that voted either for
or against the amendment because they
thought it went much further than that
because they thought it prohibited lotteries,
whatever that term may mean, from being
conducted by any private group that had
to receive a license or commission from
the State or its political subdivisions. I
believe that was the issue to which Dele-
gate Sickles referred in his question to the
Chair. Therefore, with the request of the
people who drafted the motion even if they
have no faith in it, if the reconsideration
prevails, I would offer a motion that lot-
teries will not be conducted by the State
or political subdivisions fer the purpose of
raising revenues. That would make it clear
that private groups whether they be fire
departments, churches, Elks, or Rotary,
may conduct gambling games which are not
declared illegal. For that purpose I move
that the previous vote be reconsidered.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Several times you
referred to a motion to be offered by others
the exact text of which you do not have.
I assume you mean amendment to be of-
fered by others.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I do and I
now have it in my possession.
It would read, "If the vote on the Com-
mittee Recommendation was reconsid-
ered"—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second, is
that the amendment marked B?
|
