clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1742   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1742 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 4]

I assume your answer is you relate it to
the first item.

DELEGATE CASE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: In this sec-
tion dealing with exemptions, you appar-
ently leave out any reference to what I
might call local exemptions. This simply
deals with state taxes and any tax imposed
by the state.

Does that not rather leave things in
limbo? I call your attention to the fact
where you are dealing with the political
subdivisions on the preceding page, you
say that they shall retain the taxing pow-
ers they have at the time of the adoption
of the constitution unless withdrawn by the
General Assembly.

Would the same thing be true of exemp-
tions? If so, why is that not stated in the
exemption section, because it seems to leave
them completely unregulated and beyond
the control of anyone.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.

DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Hender-
son, I think the answer to your question
is that insofar as the power to exempt is
carried with the power to tax, we dis-
cussed this at great length, and it is my
feeling that this does follow. And that the
due process clause would protect the tax-
payer from unequal exemption within a
taxing jurisdiction.

There is some doubt about this, I am
willing to acknowledge that fact. It has
also been suggested that this provision
might have contained another sentence
which in effect would say that for the
future to make it abundantly clear this
would follow, for the future all exemp-
tions would have to be equalized or uni-
form.

We did not include that in the particular
provision which is here before us, because
in my judgment at least substantive due
process would meet that point.

As far as existing exemptions are con-
cerned, the section did not include that,
although I might say the Eney Commission
draft did, because the testimony before the
Committee was that it would occasion a
very serious, perhaps even catastrophic,
dislocation of the economy of certain of
j the political subdivisions.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: That may
be true, but the example you gave of why
you did not put any language like that in
was that Baltimore County had a manu-
facturer's exemption or did not have a
manufacturer's exemption, and Baltimore
City did.

Within those two separate jurisdictions,
we are delegating local authority to the
subdivisions, counties, building them up,
that would not present any problem in due
process, but it nevertheless is an undesir-
able thing, because you have one county
bidding against another for manufacturing
industry and things of that sort by offer-
ing exemptions.

It seems to me in the long run that it is
entirely an undesirable thing and by leav-
ing any reference of it out of the constitu-
tion, you make it almost impossible for a
change ever to occur, do you not?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.

DELEGATE CASE: We hope not, Judge
Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: I am won-
dering how it could be.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.

DELEGATE CASE: Let me say this.
That this is of course a choice of relative
values again. For the members of the
Committee, let me restate what I think
Judge Henderson is getting at here.

It is a good point, and I will say ex-
actly what the Committee did. We have in
the State today a number of counties which
afford certain tax advantages for the loca-
tion of industry. Other counties have not
seen fit to have the General Assembly pro-
vide them with this tool.

It was the feeling of the Committee that
this procedure was one of local justifica-
tion and since in a complete sense as you
will see tomorrow when we get into the
state indebtedness provision, it is hoped the
State will get out of the proprety tax field.

The imposition of local property taxes
under the home rule theory of government
is going to be left pretty much to the local
governments, and not controlled bv the
State.

It seemed to us that this is in keeping
with the home rule theory which the Con-
vention really has already adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
the Chair would like to add to that two



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1742   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives