|
DELEGATE MOSER: Referring to
8.01 (b), then, this would permit the Gen-
eral Assembly to grant tax powers to any
political subdivision? This would include
municipalities on a piece-meal basis — that
is to say, they could grant the City of
Salisbury the power to tax which would
differ from the power that was granted
to Cumberland; is that correct?
DELEGATE CASE: Well, you get into a
cross current of philosophies when you ask
a question like that which cut across both
the work that your Committee did and the
work that our Committee did, and, there-
fore, to answer your question, I think both
must be explored, because there is no at-
tempt here on the part of the Taxation
Committee to usurp part of the frame of
reference that has been suggested to your
Committee.
What the Taxation Committee sought to
do in this particular section was to make
sure that the tax power was reserved to
the General Assembly, and that for the
political subdivisions to get it, it would
have to be a granted power. The words
"political subdivisions" were used because
at the time this was written it was not
clear how the counties and municipalities
would face one another as far as your
Committee was concerned.
This was written some time before, and
was approved some time before you were
gracious enough to give me the privilege
of coming before your Committee and ex-
plaining our position.
So the end result was that these words,
after your Committee had acted, were not
changed.
I suggest to you that if you are appre-
hensive about the fact that our Committee
has suggested a cleaver of local laws, then
this is not the case.
DELEGATE MOSER: I agree com-
pletely with what you say, but this was
drafted before our section 7.05 was drafted.
I think that I must ask one additional ques-
tion, since I have to put this in the form of
a question.
Is it not true that 8. 01 (b) would con-
flict with section 7.07 insofar as it mighi
permit the General Assembly to grant the
power to tax to municipalities on a piece-
meal basis, because section 7.07 requires
the General Assembly to act with respect
to municipalities by public general law —
I should say 7.07 and 7.09, to that extent.
DELEGATE CASE: You mean the sec-
ond sentence in (b) ?
|
THE CHAIRMAN: 8.01 (b).
DELEGATE CASE: And more particu-
larly, the words "one or more."
DELEGATE MOSER: That is correct.
DELEGATE CASE: I will have to ask
you a question. Could this be done to one
or more political subdivisions by public
general law?
DELEGATE MOSER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I was under the
impression that it could.
THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe the Chair
could clarify that a little bit by saying at
the time of the discussion of the local gov-
ernment article it was indicated that by
the use of the words "public general law"
in these sections the Committee did not in-
tend that the legislature could act differ-
ently as to different municipalities. The
question as to whether the terminology
would remain the same has been left to
the Committee on Style.
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Delegate Case, if
I were to assure you that the local govern-
ment provision retained the power to tax
in the General Assembly with respect to
all subdivisions, would your Committee be
willing to have 8.01 (b) deleted; that is to
say, if everything in 8. 01 (b) is covered in
article 7, with the exception of the right
to vary the tax powers of the municipalities?
DELEGATE CASE: With all due re-
spect to your Committee, I have been told
by some people who have studied both your
committee work and this piece of work that
the words in this are a little better than
the ones in yours. (Laughter.)
A very prominent Baltimore attorney
suggested this to me the other day. The
Chair will have to rule on this. I have no
authority to state that we would authorize
the deletion.
I think the way to get at it is that this
represents the sense of the Committee, to
pass them both, and let the conflict, if any,
which is in words, be resolved by the Com-
mittee on Style.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
comment that the words in 8.01 (b) in the
second sentence would appear to be in con-
flict with 7.07 and 7.09, I think it is, but I
think the problem could be resolved if it
was stated clearly in the discussion that it
was not intended that 8.01 (b) be in con-
|
