|
We put together this amendment because
we both felt, at least I felt, that the whole
concept of damages was good —
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair in-
terrupt you because there is apparently a
misconception or else the Chair is not
understanding the situation.
The present motion is for reconsidera-
tion of Amendment No. 20.
DELEGATE BARD: I understand that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second.
Amendment No. 20 was an amendment
which would remove the words "or dam-
aged" from section 9 (B).
DELEGATE BARD: That is right.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the motion for
reconsideration is carried, then Amend-
ment No. 20 to remove those words is be-
fore the committee. If the motion for re-
consideration is rejected, section 9 (B) is
still open to amendment, and Amendment
AR would be properly considered as an
amendment to section 9.
In other words, if the words are re-
moved, there is nothing for your amend-
ment to apply to. If the words remain in,
your amendment would apply to them.
DELEGATE BARD: May I ask this
question:
Would the amendment as indicated on
AR be possible only if reconsideration
fails?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you could re-
phrase your amendment so that your
amendment could be offered as a substitute
for Amendment No. 20, but what I am
trying to point out to you is that your
right to offer your amendment AR does
not depend upon the outcome of the motion
to reconsider.
DELEGATE BARD: I thought it was
the other way around.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: In view of
that elucidation on the situation, could I
suggest to the sponsors of the amendment
that they now offer it, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you suggest
what, Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Could I sug-
gest to the sponsors of this amendment
that they withdraw their motion to re-
consider and, instead, offer their amend-
ment.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: The sponsors of the
motion are not the ones who made the
motion to reconsider.
Delegate Adkins is the one who made the
motion to reconsider. Do you want to make
that suggestion to Delegate Adkins?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I would prefer to have the motion to re-
consider considered by this body. My own
feeling is that we would be in a stronger
posture if we eliminated the words from
the constitution which would thereby leave
the General Assembly in a position to add
such measure of damages in condemnation
cases as it thought wise.
It seems to me that the addition of the
language in the constitution raises many
questionable problems during the hiatus
between the adoption of the constitution
and the time when the General Assembly
should see fit to act.
My position therefore is that I would
prefer to have the language eliminated
should the convention reject that proposal.
I should then prefer to have the amend-
ment considered, but I would like to have
the motion to reconsider and the original
Gilchrist amendment again considered by
the Convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
I have to rise to a point here. Delegate
Adkins is incorrectly stating a legal situa-
tion.
The General Assembly cannot add "dam-
ages to" as we contemplate the concept in
this amendment because the word "use" by
itself in the constitution as we have studied
it and read it and as it has been interpreted
by the Court of Appeals means only a
physical taking. This goes beyond that. The
legislature would not have an opportunity
to provide for damages other than damages
when there is involved an actual physical
taking.
That is the reason why we put this in
the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, the
Chair is lost completely. I may not have
caught what Delegate Adkins said at the
last.
Are you saying that if there were no
provision at all as to eminent domain in
the Constitution that the legislature would
|
