|
not have the power to provide compensation
for either taking or damage?
DELEGATE KIEFER: No, sir, I did
not say that.
What I said was this, that where the
constitution provides for compensation for
a taking, that the taking as defined by the
Court of Appeals means a physical taking.
Therefore, by Court of Appeals decisions
in this State, damages cannot be awarded
under the constitutional provision unless
there is a physical taking.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me again see if
I understand.
What you are saying is that the con-
stitution without the words "damage"
would not require compensation except for
a taking, but you were not saying that the
legislature could not voluntarily provide
for compensation for damages?
DELEGATE KIEFER: No, sir. I was
saying exactly the opposite. I was saying
that if the constitution does not provide
for damages the General Assembly cannot
allow for damages under the ruling of our
Court of Appeals. That is why we put the
word damage in.
THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair would not
agree with that interpretation nor do I
think the Chairman of the Committee of
the Legislative Branch would, Delegate
Kiefer.
I may not be understanding what you
are saying, and I would like the record to
be very clear on it.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I have to with-
draw those remarks. My legal adviser
tells me that despite these rulings of the
Court of Appeals the legislature could pro-
vide for damages other than for a taking.
If he says so, I will abide by that. I
still say we should leave what we have
done as is and defeat the motion to re-
consider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very Well.
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do not
know exactly where we are at this point in
debate, but I would like to put in my two
cents worth, if I may, in support of the
motion to reconsider.
It seems to me that this matter should
be reconsidered and the words "or dam-
age" should be taken out of the proposal.
The great difficulty with those words, it
|
seems to me, is this: that once you get
away from the property that is taken and
try to compensate people whose property is
not taken, you open the door so wide that it
would require years of definition even
partially to close it, and for that reason,
I think it is a matter that should be
worked out at the legislative level.
Now, it is perfectly clear to me that by
taking the words "or damaged" out of
the constitution, you leave the legislature
perfectly free to legislate in that whole
field and to award damages to whomever
they please, but as I have read the cases
in other states, these cases range all over
the field.
They go to extreme limits in awarding
damages to people who are only slightly
and incidentally damaged and it seems to
me this would be a tremendous clog in the
whole judicial process of condemning
property for public use and would be of
great harm to the people of the State of
Maryland.
Therefore, I would urge, strongly urge,
that we reconsider this matter and delete
the words "or damaged" from the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Churchill
Murray.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to
speak in opposition to the motion to re-
consider?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Murray.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Is it
proper that I direct a question to Delegate
Adkins?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not if someone else
desires to speak in opposition.
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in opposition to the motion?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Will Delegate
Henderson yield to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not so long as
someone desires to debate.
Does anyone desire to speak in opposi-
tion?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I probably at one
time or another will ask things of this
|
