|
aged. It is nothing to get excited about. It
has worked out in many states.
I do not think our Court of Appeals or
our legislature has run wild on allowing
damages. We adopted this new concept
resoundingly. I hope we will defeat the
motion for reconsideration as resoundingly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of recon-
sideration?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, Delegate Bard and I have requested
the printing of an amendment which we
would offer if this is reconsidered and if
it has been printed, Mr. Chairman —
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the Amend-
ment AR?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I have not
seen it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It adds the phrase
"as the latter term shall be defined by law."
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is printed.
Will the pages please distribute Amend-
ment AR.
Did you wish to speak further on the
matter, Delegate Macdonald?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Yes, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Fellow
delegates, I hope you will vote in favor of
the motion to reconsider. I do believe that
we are embarking here if this section is
not amended, on an uncharted course.
We have no case law in the State of
Maryland which would point the way,
which would tell us what damages are
compensible in cases which would arise.
We have no way of knowing what the
limits are.
Many of us are fearful that we have
opened the floodgates. I am sure that if
this matter were considered by the Gen-
eral Assembly they would hold hearings
for days on the subject.
The amendment which Delegate Bard
and I propose to introduce, if you will
reconsider this matter, would not prevent
the awarding of damages. It would simply
allow the General Assembly to pass suit-
able laws to lay clown the guidelines.
|
As Delegate Henderson has pointed out
to you, without these guidelines we would
be in an extremely nebulous and uncertain
area.
Now, the Committee seeks to assure you,
seeks to say, "Well, take our word for it,
everything is going to be all right." I sub-
mit to you that the report of the Committee
on this matter is very short and skimpy.
They do not give us one example in which
damages would be allowed and in which
they would not be allowed and I refer you
to page 27 of the Majority Report.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I repeat,
we are fearful that we would be opening
the floodgates. Please reconsider so that
this amendment which would simply allow
the General Assembly to lay down the
guidelines, may be considered.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
motion ?
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: Ladies and
gentlemen of the Convention, you heard
most of the arguments yesterday on this
subject. Please be assured that I and mem-
bers of the Committee would be among the
first to fight if we thought this was a raid
upon the treasury or a possibility of a raid
upon the treasury.
This concept which appears here was
first set forth in the State of Illinois in
1870. This is three years younger than the
Constitution we are trying to modernize.
Twenty-six of the fifty states have this par-
ticular concept.
Now, certainly I have not been at the bar
so long; as some of our eminent individuals
who have spoken on the subject, but I am
not sure they studied the law.
I did have an opportunity to work with
a congressional committee. My area of re-
sponsibility was railroad right of way. I
say to you that I do not think you will be
able to tell the difference. It is merely an
awareness, a realization that when planners
draw lines between point A and point B,
that there is sometimes flesh and blood be-
tween those lines.
It is an attempt to recognize that in-
justices are sometimes worked on small
property owners whose property is in fact
not physically touched but upon whom a
tremendous burden or loss occurs.
|
