|
it has already defined agriculture under the
present law and continue the present ar-
rangement without enacting any new law?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Well of course, I
cannot answer for what the legislature
might or might not do. Assuming this pro-
vision on classification becomes part of the
integral law of the State, if I were draw-
ing the act I would have drawn it a little
differently, but it might well be that either
through transitory legislation, which this
body might devise, or otherwise, the law
would be different than it is today.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Am I not cor-
rect then, in concluding that the power that
is given the legislature in the first clause of
section 8.02 is a sufficient grant of power
to the legislature to permit it to define
agriculture just as it would permit it to
define open space or any other use?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: You are absolutely
right, and I think in fairness to you and
to the Committee it ought to be stated very
clearly why there is a seeming hanging
out of the wording '"agriculture" in this
document. The reason Delegate Hanson and
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, is
two-fold: first, every agricultural group,
every society, every agency within the
State came before the Committee through
its representatives and asked specifically
that the word be included, because of their
fears that if it were not included, that the
agricultural economy of this State might
be seriously affected.
I think that the majority of members of
the Committee felt that this was a bona
fide and justified position for them to take.
I am not going into all of the ramifications
of that now, but suffice it to say a most
persuasive case was presented for the prop-
osition that the true bona fide farmer
needed and deserved protection.
That is point one.
Point two is that of course this matter
had been up and down the legal and legis-
lative hill for quite a few parades in the
recent past. Bear in mind the sequence of
events and again I call this to the atten-
tion of the Committee.
First the law is passed authorizing this
treatment. It is vetoed by the governor, a
lot of publicity is given to it. The General
Assembly passes it over his veto. Court of
Appeals declares it to be unconstitutional.
|
With that much spotlight on the subject,
you get the legislature reconvening, a con-
stitutional amendment passed, so that you
have a constitutional amendment suggested
by the General Assembly which in effect
sought to overturn a decision of the Court
of Appeals, sought to overturn a decision
of the governor of the State.
Here the issue was clearly drawn. It
was clearly drawn and in no unmistakable
terms — the vote on this was overwhelm-
ingly in favor of granting the farm use
assessment.
We felt in our Committee that this was a
fact that could not be brushed aside, it had
to be taken into account. I forgot the vote,
I can give it to you in a minute — it was
overwhelmingly in favor of this thing. This
in view of the fact the Court of Appeals
itself had said it was unconstitutional. You
could not have an issue where the spot-
light was more directed on the subject
matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I would agree
with the direction of the spotlight and im-
portance of the subject matter, but assum-
ing with me for a moment that whatever is
said here so long as the law is not repealed
by some action in this new constitution that
the farm land assessments act or some
similar act giving tax advantages to bona
fide farmers is to remain on the books in
Maryland, why did the Committee decide to
use the mandatory "shall" in the creation
of any classifications that require the es-
tablishment of a class for agricultural uses
rather than to continue the current lan-
guage of the Constitution which is permis-
sive where it says in Article 43, the legis-
lature may provide, and so forth?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Hanson,
you now reach me in an ambivalency which
results from the fact that I was a member
of the so-called Eney Commission on the
one hand, and a member of this Convention
on the other.
You will find if you read the report of
the Commission that the word "may" was
used. I was chairman of the tax committee
of that Commission and it was my recom-
mendation at the time, it was the unani-
mous recommendation of the Commission,
that the word "may" should be used. That
is the way it came to this body.
On the other hand, an abundance of in-
telligence came to the Committee by way
of testimony from interested groups, from
|
