|
DELEGATE NIELSON: No, sir.
It is the same language, just a matter
of striking two more lines, to perhaps
clarify it.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE NIELSON: It would be to
strike out all of the language in line 23
through 26, and then add the words, "except
as may be provided by law.", as we have
it in this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN : You mean all of line
23, or do you mean all of line 23 after the
period?
DELEGATE NIELSON: As we have it
here, strike out the period in line 23, and
the last sentence of the section, beginning
with "position of notary public."
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles,
that, in effect, is a combination of your
amendments AE and AD, is it not?
DELEGATE SICKLES: Yes. I was pre-
pared to offer that next. If it is permis-
sible to combine them, I would be happy to
do so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Nielson,
Delegate Sickles has another amendment
which would accomplish what you want.
Can you hold your motion, and then vote
on one and then the other?
DELEGATE NIELSON: I suggest it is
20 minutes after 10, and if we go through
each and accomplish the same purpose,
would it not be wiser to get to the issue
and decide it now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Sickles, do you desire to modify
your Amendment No. 6 to read as follows:
on page 2, section 5, Limitation of Holding
Office, in line 23 strike out the period and
all of lines 24, 25 and 26, and insert in
lieu thereof the following words: ", except
as may be provided by law."?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I do, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to the modification?
Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
while the mover of the motion is in such a
congenial mood —
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to the modification?
|
There is no objection.
Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I wonder if
the sponsor of the amendment would also
eliminate the word "except". I think that
that is his intention.
As I understand his amendment, and as
I am supporting it, he is just indicating
that what is an office of profit should be
declared by the General Assembly and not
that the General Assembly should declare
that it would be permissible to have dual
offices for profit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason,
the Chair does not understand the purpose
to be accomplished by deleting the word
"except."
Will you explain it?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
if the word "except" stays in the amend-
ment, then as I read the amendment, if it is
approved and added to this sentence, it
would provide that no person shall hold
more than one office of profit, except as
may be provided by law, which would give
the General Assembly the power to allow in
certain cases people to hold two offices of
profit.
I do not think that is the sponsor's inten-
tion, and therefore, if he removed and elimi-
nated the word "except" it will carry out
what I think is his intention.
THE CHAIRMAN: How would you under-
stand the sentence to be construed if you
took out the word "except"?
DELEGATE GLEASON: If we took out
the word "except", then I would say that
the General Assembly has within its power
the ability and the authority to define what
is an office of profit, and that is what has
been the troublesome thing over the years.
T.HE CHAIRMAN: I take it the difference
is the amendment as proffered would mean
that two offices could not be held unless the
General Assembly provided otherwise, and
as you suggest it be changed, it would pro-
vide that two offices could not be held if
the General Assembly so provided. Is that
essentially the difference, Delegate Gleason ?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles, do
you understand the proposal?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I understand the
colloquy, but my precinct over here does not
accept it. I would like to go along with
|
