|
sel have been able to determine by diligent
research, have ever suggested that bingo
was not a lottery and those are the How-
ard County and Anne Arundel County Cir-
cuit Courts which avoided the conclusion
pressed here by appellants by finding that
bingo cannot be a lottery because it is a
game. (E. 162-64, 115-19).
"Cases reaching an opposite conclusion
as to bingo and bingo variants include
the following: State v. Midtercr, 234
Wisconsin, 50, 289 N. W. 600 (1940);
State v. Lav en, 270 Wisconsin, 574, 71
N. W. 2d 287 (1955); State r. Mabrei/,
245 Iowa 428, 60 N. W. 2d 889 (1953);
State v. Randall, 121 Oregon 545, 256P.
393 (1927); State v. Halm, 105 Mon-
tana, 270, 72 P 2d 459 (1937); Societi/
of Good Neighbors v. Van Anticerp, 324
Michigan 22, 36 N. W. 2d 308 (1949);
People v. Welch, 269 Michigan 449, 257,
N. W. 859, (1934); Hoffman r. State,
219 S. W. 2d 539 (Texas) ; Nad hi v.
Starick, 24 Ohio 2d 323, 194 N. E. 2d 81
(1963) ; Kai/den Industries r. Lefkoin'tz,
259 N. Y. S. 2d 704 (1965).
"Appellees in this case have loaded the
record (E. 8-40) with material describ-
ing and illustrating their particular
bingo operations in minute detail. But
the nature of bingo is not in dispute;
all agree that patrons (1) pay cash for
cards, (2) fill the cards according to a
wholly chance — determined drawing of
numbered balls, and (3) receive a cash
prize if they make a winning assign-
ment. These are the classic elements of
lottery. Horner v, U.S., 147 U.S. 449
(1893); Shclton v. State, 198 Maryland,
405, 84A.2d 76 (1951); Bullock v. State,
73 Maryland 1, 20A.184 (1890) ; Lone/ v.
State, 74 Maryland 565, 22A.4 (1891)."
Now, Mr. President, if bingo in the view
of these appellants can be considered a
lottery, no 50-50 chance can be excluded
from it. No raffle conducted by a club can
be excluded from a definition of lottery and
therefore I hope that the motion to recon-
sider is carried so that we can put some
definitions in here and say what is included
and what is not included. I would like to
be able to go out to the people of my area
and say that this Convention has either
prohibited or not prohibited so we might
tell them what you are doing here. If you
want to set moral standards go ahead and
do it but I have to explain it to my people.
My people may or may not accept it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman,
I speak in opposition to the vote to recon-
|
sider and I think that some of the people
who are now taking the floor urging re-
consideration are explaining Delegate Mur-
ray's question. What is inside the bag of
apples is a bag of worms. I hope we would
defeat this Trojan horse.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the motion
to reconsider?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: I voted in favor
of Committee Recommendation SF-2 be-
cause I think it would be unwise to permit
this State to engage in financing by lottery
or to permit any political subdivisions to do
so. That is as far as the constitutional ban
should go. If reconsidered I shall then vote
for the amendment proposed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I am opposed to
the motion. I am theoretically one of the
fathers of Amendment 0, but I want to
disown it at this point.
This was a secondary position for me and
I hope for some of the others feeling that
perhaps SF-2 ought to be adopted. I will
vote against the motion to reconsider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair say
Amendment C distributed to you was dis-
tributed for information only. You are not
to consider that it is or it will be offered
by the delegates whose names appear. At
least two of them, Delegates James and
Sickles do not propose to offer the amend-
ment. I do not know about the others. But
at least they are not sponsoring it.
Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I know, sir, that just as soon as I start to
speak that you will rule me out of order.
But gambling is gambling and there is no
difference whether you lose it on a lottery
or whether you lose it on a horse. I know
that horse racing controls a great part of
the State of Maryland. But for this body
to outlaw something as insignificant as a
lottery and make no mention of the millions
of dollars that are lost on bad horses is a
reflection on the intelligence of this honor-
able body.
The fathers of this article here refer
only to lottery. What does lottery mean?
What will the courts say lottery means.
No one here is smart enough to know what
the courts are going to say. To a man who
does not bet except to play a little gin
rummy once in a while, I would like to see
|
