|
eration of a lottery, whatever that may be,
for the purpose of paying public revenue.
I had thought this was the original pur-
pose of the proposal contained in SF-2.
But during the debate upon questioning it
became crystal clear and the Chair stated it
unequivocally that if passed, and we did
pass it, now it has been reconsidered, if
passed it would bar any state toleration,
sanctioning or authorization of a lottery
whatever that subject encompasses, on the
part of any private group.
In the minds of many of this assembly,
that went much too far and far beyond
the debate that went on before the Com-
mission, far beyond what I thought was
the original intention of Judge Sherbow's
proposal.
In order to clarify it and refute that ex-
treme position, I have offered this amend-
ment. I will not repeat the debate on it.
We debated it ad nauseum, but the pro-
posal that passed but has been reconsid-
ered, would permit the highest court of this
State, to determine what forms of gambling embraced within the concepts of lottery
would be permitted.
I want to read you the second definition
in Webster's 7th New Colleg-iate Dictionary
on lottery. I will read the first to be fair,
because that is the one that is a little more
familiar to us all.
The first definition given is lottery, a
drawing of lots in which prizes are dis-
tributed to the winners, among persons
buying a chance.
I would think that first definition would
bar the private operation of a raffle, a
g-ive-away, even the gasoline stations where
you have to buy something to g-et a prize;
it certainly would bar bingo and a host of
other things.
The second definition, equally acceptable,
is an event or affair whose outcome is or
seems to be determined by chance.
I have been to a few horse races that
might be covered by that definition. But it
seems to me that this would give a power
in the court that should be denied them.
There is no excuse for putting in the
constitution this type of prohibition unless
one is to accept the suggestion of my good
friend Delegate Malkus to bar all forms of
gambling activity.
I suggest the amendment I have offered
as originally proposed by the founders at
least strikes a medium ground and I think
|
returns us to the original provision in the
Constitution which would bar the State
from conducting or authorizing the con-
duct of a lottery in its behalf.
The only change would be that the po-
litical subdivisions would now be subject
to the same prohibition.
I urge that the delegate strike this happy
compromise between unrealistic morality in
a constitution and perhaps sound restraint
on the General Assembly from adopting a
lottery in the future.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: I would like to
ask my good friend Al Scanlan if he will
yield to a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes, Delegate
Malkus.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Did I under-
stand you to say that I was opposed to all
forms of gambling?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: No, I did not
mean to suggest that. I thought you had
made a very good point in that it is very
difficult to distinguish between horseracing
and lotteries, and the second definition for
lottery found in Webster's Dictionary in-
dicates you may be closer to the truth
than many of us here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: I thank the
gentleman.
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to offer an amendment to the
amendment. I propose that on line 7 the
word "the" be struck and substitute there-
fore the word "any".
THE CHAIRMAN: The word what?
DELEGATE BENNETT: The word
"any", A-n-y. After the word "purpose", a
period, and the rest of the amendment be
stricken.
In other words, what this will say is
"neither the General Assembly nor the gov-
erning body of any political subdivision of
|
