|
owner will have a right to compensation
when his property is not actually taken,
but merely damaged, as the General Assem-
bly defines damages. The General Assembly
may define damage as being a broad right.
They may decide to define it as a right the
same as it is defined by the decisions of
the courts, but they may also define it in a
very limited way and could define it really
as being no broader than the taking of
property.
Now, if I misconstrue the amendment, I
hope the Chairman will respond. I do be-
lieve, if I interpret the amendment correctly,
that it gives to the General Assembly in
effect the right to remove the word "dam-
aged" from the constitution.
I do not mean that literally. Obviously,
they cannot do that, but they can define
"damaged" in such a limited way that the
right which the Committee intends to give
will be absolutely worthless, and if I am
correct, then I am disturbed by the Chair-
man's acceptance of this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak on the amendment?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, the sponsors of this amendment agree
substantially with Delegate Bamberger. This
gives the General Assembly the power to
circumscribe, as he puts it, this right to
damages and that is the purpose of the
amendment. We are fearful that, without
this amendment, the floodgates will be
opened; we will be in an uncharted field.
There is no law in the State of Maryland
on this matter. Up to this time, damage to
property where there is no taking has not
been compensable, and if we are going to
shift gears in this way, we think that the
General Assembly should sit down and lay
down the guidelines. I think we have to
have a little fight in the General Assembly
to legislate, and that is all this amendment
does.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition of the
amendment?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman, I
share with Delegate Bamberger the concern
about the Chairman of the Committee ac-
cepting this amendment in the language in
which we have it before us because as I
read that language I interpret it to mean
that the General Assembly, could exclude
the extension of damages which I believe
|
are contemplated here in section 9, and on
that basis, retain and keep the existing
compensation exactly as is, which certainly
is not the intent of the Committee, and the
intent of section 9 as it is presently written.
One reason why this language should be
opposed, which I was intending to suggest
to Delegate Kiefer, is that in the interim
period between the effective date of the
constitution and action by the General As-
sembly, there is no question about the fact
that the courts would interpret the word
"damage/' and would give guidelines along which the General Assembly could and in
all probability would act. But with these
words, as presently before us in this amend-
ment, where the exclusive right and man-
date to define the word "damage" is left to
the General Assembly, it means only that
its interpretation and definition will be ap-
plicable and in that way the General Assem-
bly can nullify the very right which the
Committee is seeking to give.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, I
had not planned to speak on this point but
I am afraid I have to.
I had started earlier by saying that this
amendment came into being when two in-
dividuals who split up on two ends of a
pole the other day in connection with this
point, gathered in connection with their
mutual concern. There was a concern that
perhaps this whole thing had not been
thought through in terms of its end. I for
one believed that the State had responsi-
bilities in connection with damage but I did
think that within the memorandum the
Majority Report had indicated that there
were words that were terribly important,
namely, that the pleasure and nature of
compensable damages are matters properly
left to the legislature. This is page 28 of
the Majority Report Memorandum.
The intent had been cleared, they did
add, in the courts. New York State believed
this whole concept was so important that
within its statement read the following:
"Private property shall not be taken or
damaged as such latter term is defined by
law for public use or purpose without just
and timely compensation."
In other words, they believed that you
ought not leave this to the memorandum.
The Majority Report has not changed its
opinion by agreeing with our view. It is
merely saying the taking out of the memo-
randum and placing it into the constitu-
tion proper is highlighting that concern
which some of us have.
|
