|
Bennett, except that instead of the word
"any" in line 7 you use the word "public"?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I would
say for any public or private purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
rule it would be equivalent to the Commit-
tee Recommendation. The effect of the Com-
mittee Recommendation is to prohibit a
lottery for either public or private purpose.
If you are seeking to amend Amendment
No. 1 to accomplish the same thing, it is
equivalent to the Committee Recom-
mendation.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I do not
like to prolong this, Mr. Chairman, but the
way I read this, it is vastly different from
the recommendation made by the Com-
mittee.
THE CHAIRMAN: By this, you mean
what?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: This
amendment C, Amendment No. 1.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is indeed.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: This is
confined to an operation of lottery by the
State or by a local governing body or an
authorization of a lottery by the State or
local governing body.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair
misunderstood your purpose. State the
manner in which you would amend Amend-
ment No. 1.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I would
amend Amendment No. 1 in the very same
way Delegate Bennett has suggested or as
an alternative on line 7, instead of saying
"for the purpose of", et cetera, say "for
any public or private purpose".
The prohibition of the entire amendment
would be against a lottery either conducted
by the State or authorized by the State. In
my opinion, that would not outlaw a lot-
tery which is conducted by a private
organization.
I understand that SF-2 would do the
latter, and this would not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdon-
ald, would it not be authorized by the State
if lottery were made an exception to the
general anti-gambling statute? Would it
not come then within the language of bein^
authorized by the State?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then I think it
would be substantially the same as the pre-
|
vious recommendation. I think you can
achieve your objective, but you would have
to use some different language than the
word "authorize".
If I understand you now, you are trying
to say you want to prohibit the State by
affirmative action authorizing but not pro-
hibit the State by negative action in effect
from permitting a private lottery, is this
the essence of what you are trying to
get at?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, what I am trying to get at is to have
it drafted so that a lottery could be con-
ducted by a private organization and that
this per se would not be a prohibition
against that, but that the State and the
local governing bodies, on the other hand,
would be prohibited from authorizing, if
you will, or conducting a lottery for any
purpose, whether public or private.
For instance, they might authorize a
lottery for the purpose of building a swim-
ming pool. It would not necessarily be
public.
THE CHAIRMAN: In order to make its
intent clear so it would not be quibbling,
I think you have to change the language
around, in view of earlier discussion. I call
your attention to the fact the word "au-
thorize" is the word now used in the Com-
mittee Recommendation SF-2.
It seems to me that unless we change
the language in Amendment No. 1 you are
by the suggestion you make coming right
back to Committee Recommendation SF-2.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I will try
to work on some language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
The question arises on Amendment No.
1. Does any delegate desire to speak in
favor of Amendment No. 1?
Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
is book-making a lottery?
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Are you addressing
the question to the Chair?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: My second
question is this.
(Laughter.)
Does this amendment permit legalized
book-making?
|
