|
THE CHAIRMAN: Churchill Murray.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Would
this permit private parties to operate a
lottery, private parties beyond what we
normally have in mind in churches and fire
halls and that sort of thing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: If the legisla-
ture permitted it, the answer would be yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: This would not for-
bid it. Whether it was permitted would be
up to the legislature. Do you have a further
question, Delegate Murray?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: State it.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Would
this not subject the legislature to pressure
over and over and over again.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of
debate. You can argue that right now, if
you wish.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: I can
argue it now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 1 am just
pointing out that it is not a question ad-
dressed to Delegate Scanlan. The Chair
suggests it is properly a matter of debate
and not for question. You may argue the
point right now.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Then 1
wish to argue.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: By way
of example, an adjoining county badly
needed a hospital some years ago and they
permitted slot machines to come into their
counties with this in mind. The hospital
was built and it has nearly fallen down,
but the slot machines are still there and
are benefiting primarily two or three
racketeers who placed them there who are
not natives of the county at all. This is not
a perfect parallel, but what I am trying to
illustrate is that I am not necessarily op-
posing charitable institutions doing this
and I am not necessarily opposing doing;
this for worthwhile causes if anyone can
determine what that means, but I am
afraid of the breadth of the permission
that it appears that this puts back in the
law. We need to know what is in this bag;
of apples.
Now, whether we should mention this in
the constitution at all or not is a separate
question but if we are going to do that,
|
then should we open it wide to private
operations?
THE CHAIRMAN: The question arises
on the motion to reconsider. Is there any
further discussion?
Delegate Neilson.
DELEGATE NEILSON: Fellow dele
gates, I rise to oppose the motion to recon-
sider and urge that those who voted yes Ji
moment ago vote no this time. I do not.
think that any of us who want to set our-
selves up as being the judges on the Couri
of Appeals to decide just what the effect of
the language is as it now stands as we have
just accepted it. I would suggest that we
not attempt to bring in that element.
I speak of those who run these things,
whether for governmental purposes or for
private interests and I would suggest that
we keep it all out and let the court decide
how far it will go in its wisdom. Vote no
on the motion to reconsider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegale
desire to speak in favor of the motion to
reconsider?
Delegate Roger.
DELEGATE ROGER: I would want to
ask a question of Delegate Scanlan.
THE CHAIRMAN: His time has ex-
pired. We will permit one more question.
Delegate Roger.
DELEGATE ROGER: I would like to
ask the Chair a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ask it of Delegate
Scanlan.
DELEGATE ROGER: I would like to
be sure that I heard Delegate Scanlan cor-
rectly say if a private corporation in the
State of Maryland wanted to hold a lottery
to support a study of cancer, statewide, and
when it would go to support and fight can-
cer, it would be all right provided that —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That would be
all right provided it did not violate the
specific statute that the legislature had
enacted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, 1
should like to speak in favor of the motion
to reconsider. There are a goodly number
of us here who feel that there is a fine
|
