|
distinction in regard to the question in
debate. I believe by way of illustration
that the State should not seek to legislate
in the area of morality and therefore I
would tend to feel that perhaps the motion
we have just approved was not entirely to
my liking.
On the other hand, I must say that I
am very much concerned about the fact
that the State itself should create an image
that to me seems most contradictory. When-
ever I get up to New York City and see
the advertisements and the subway ads
which say, "Buy New York State Lottery
Tickets so we can support our educational
purposes," I then recognize the anomalous
situation of that advertisement and the
contradictory role it plays in terms of
education.
It seems to me that this kind of action
on the part of the State itself cancels out
the very functions and aims and goals
which public education seeks, so from this
point of view I see the amendment that
might be offered if we reconsidered as one
which serves the purposes of those who do
not seek to legislate morality on one hand,
but on the other hand do not desire to
have the State itself enter into a contra-
dictory role. These are the education and
taxation roles.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I have a
very brief statement, and a parliamentary
inquiry, if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: The brief
statement is that the debate this evening
has caused me to change my pre-dinner
position and take the view that our vote
a few minutes ago was absolutely right.
The parliamentary inquiry is this : If
this motion to reconsider should be adopted
and if a subsequent motion should be de-
feated, would the Chair rule that it is pos-
sible in a parliamentary sense to return to
the recently adopted recommendation of the
committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the sub-
sequent motion. You said if a subsequent
motion were defeated.
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I presume
the subsequent motion after reconsideration
is the motion which Delegate Scanlan has
offered. If it is defeated would we be in a
.situation where there is nothing in the
|
Constitution, or would we be in a parlia-
mentary situation where we could return
to some other provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair make
this statement hopefully to remove any fur-
ther doubt, if there is any, as to what the
situation is. Committee Recommendation
SF-2 was adopted with the very explicit
understanding that its meaning was to pro-
hibit in and of itself without legislative
implementation all lotteries in the State of
Maryland whether conducted by govern-
mental unit or by private persons or cor-
porations and that the language would be
so modified by the Committee on Style to
make it abundantly clear that the provi-
sion in the constitution was a self-execut-
ing absolute prohibition against lotteries
being conducted in the State of Maryland.
That recommendation with that interpre-
tation was approved. If the vote by which
it was approved is reconsidered, the rec-
ommendation is still before the Committee
of the Whole. There will be an amendment
offered. If the amendment fails, the recom-
mendation is still before the Committee of
the Whole either subject to further amend-
ment or subject to approval in its then
form.
Are there any questions as to the par-
liamentary procedure.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, and members of the Committee: I
want to speak in favor of the motion to
reconsider. I want it clearly understood
that if the motion to reconsider is adopted
that I shall vote against it, if Amendment
C is offered, because I think that probably
the State may at some time want to op-
erate a lottery for legitimate purposes and
probably if the State operated it properly
that might be the best way to do it. How-
ever, I do not want to preclude the State
from doing that as Amendment C would,
but I would want the motion to reconsider
carried so that we can further define what
we mean by "lottery". There has been a
lot bandied around here today as to a 50-50
raffle and, as I understood the Chairman of
the Committee to say, a 50-50 raffle by a
club would be considered a lottery. I want
to read you something from the brief of
Rufus King in the recent case on bingo
and the Chairman said that bingo would
not be included as lottery but Mr. Rufus
King in writing his brief for the Court of
Appeals said this on page 29 of his ap-
pellant brief. He says, "Only two courts in
the United States, at least as far as coun-
|
