|
vised that Delegate Adkins desires to move
for reconsideration.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to move that the action by
which Amendment No. 20 to Committee
Recommendation R&P-1 was rejected be
reconsidered.
This is the vote that relates to the dele-
tion of the word "damage" from the con-
demnation provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: It having been
moved and seconded that the vote by which
Amendment No. 20 was rejected be re-
considered, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Adkins to speak to the motion.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion: It seems to me that the action of
this body in rejecting the amendment of-
fered by Delegate Gilchrist to eliminate
the words relating to damages in the
condemnation section will turn out to have
been a serious mistake in terms of en-
forcement of the provisions of this article.
I do not desire to rehash the argument
that was presented in favor of the amend-
ment and also in its opposition, except to
say this.
The word "damage", per se, in Mary-
land, has not been defined by the courts in
this context. Now, I am quite aware as the
Majority Report argues that there are
some twenty-odd states which have used
this language in their constitution. I am
also aware that these twenty states have to
some extent built up a judicial history or
judicial definition of the term, but I am
equally aware that the Court of Appeals
is by no means bound by the judicial mean-
ing of that language in any other State.
The net result, it seems to me, if this lan-
guage is continued in the constitution or is
for the first time implemented in the con-
stitution of Maryland, would be that sub-
stantially every case involving condemna-
tion of the real estate in Maryland would
have to be finally adjudicated by the Court
of Appeals.
In addition to being an extremely ex-
pensive situation for the litigants involved,
this will also mean delay in the imple-
mentation, if necessary, of public improve-
ments. It will ultimately mean great addi-
tional expense primarily to the property
owner.
I have for a good many years been rea-
sonably active in the field of condemnation
|
as have most lawyers. In general my rep-
resentations have been for the property
owners so I am interested in seeing every-
thing done to protect the rights of the
property owners that can be done.
I suggest to you that this does not do it.
The language if eliminated still leaves
open the right to the General Assembly to
describe the term "property." In the last
five years they have seen fit to broaden
considerably the terms by permitting the
allocation of additional items of damage in
condemnation cases in addition to the actual
value of the property taken.
The unstabilizing effect of this language
is, it seems to me, greatly to be regretted.
I would therefore urge this Convention to
reconsider its position and to adopt the
Gilchrist amendment eliminating this ques-
tionable language from the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee, I rise to oppose the motion to recon-
sider. I note that Delegate Adkins did not
vote. I do not know whether he was not
here to hear all the arguments.
There were many misleading statements.
One person said this amendment would
affect property for miles around and hordes
of people could collect damages. I am not
at all impressed with his argument that
this will create new problems and that
new laws will be required. This concept has
been adopted in many other states. It has
been orderly and properly developed.
One other point that I think Delegate
Adkins has missed is that under the present
rulings of our court, there are only dam-
ages allowed when the property is physi-
cally taken. This new language enlarges
the right of the property owners to collect
for damage when their property is not
actually taken by the sovereign State.
Consequently, I say to you, all we are
doing is restating a right of the individual,
a personal right, and we are enlarging it
to the extent of permitting damages in a
situation where modern times demand
damages under certain peculiar circum-
stances.
This is not running wild with the pub-
lic's money in certain circumstances where
a taking damages property without a physi-
cal taking. The Court of Appeals now may
award damages, but only when property is
actually taken. There are many instances
where a property is not taken but is dam-
|
