|
resources, how it will be affected by suits
that may be filed against it and, in par-
ticular instances, saying you cannot sue.
What I wish to point out is that we are
making, if we adopt section 7 and reject
the Amendment No. 9, we are making a
very important policy decision, a decision
which will affect the finances not just of
the State but of every county, every city,
every municipality, every unit of govern-
ment in the State.
I submit that we do not have before us
the facts, or the justification for making
any such decision. I urge you to vote for
Amendment No. 9, and leave this matter
to be decided by a forum which can direct
its attention to it and can ascertain the
facts.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Koger to speak in opposition.
DELEGATE KOGER: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen, I sincerely hope
that you will oppose this amendment.
First of all, this has been an abuse of
the citizens of the State of Maryland for a
long, long time. I serve as a member of
the Insurance Advisory Commission of
Baltimore City.
We recently reviewed the insurances car-
ried by the City. We found that in many
areas, not nearly as many as Delegate Gal-
lagher would have you believe, where the
City of Baltimore can protect itself or pro-
tect the people within the City.
A very good example of how the state
operates is found at Morgan State College
where we have a canteen that is operated
by a Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson is re-
quired by the State of Maryland to carry
five hundred to a million dollars of insur-
ance to protect the students or the people
who purchase food from the canteen. If
my daughter were to break a tooth off
while eating a sandwich, she would have
some point of recovery. However, less than
one hundred feet from the canteen is Mor-
gan College's dining room. If all the stu-
dents were to suddenly die from ptomaine
poisoning from food eaten there, they could
not collect a nickel, because the state offers
no protection. That shows you how silly
this particular thing of state immunity is.
I hope you will vote against this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Hanson, do you desire to speak
in opposition?
|
DELEGATE HANSON: I have a point
of parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE HANSON: I would like to
preface my inquiry with a very brief state-
ment. I would very much be in favor of a
policy change which this section recom-
mends, but I can see some very severe
problems with its immediate implementa-
tion upon the adoption of the Constitution.
I should like to inquire of the Chair or the
Chairman of the Committee whether, should
section 7 as reported be adopted, the Com-
mittee would recommend strongly to the
Convention that the transitional legislation
or the schedule for the implementation of
the Constitution contain a provision that
this section would not become effective until
the General Assembly had an appropriate
opportunity to review the status of liability
and provide adequate laws to make this
reversal a useful and easy one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson,
the Chairman of the Committee has already
announced that if Amendment No. 9 is
defeated he proposes to offer his Amend-
ment D which is on your desk. Have you
seen it?
DELEGATE HANSON: Yes, I have
seen it and I will oppose Amendment D
because I think it only states the obvious.
THE CHAIRMAN: It states the con-
verse of section 7. That is why I wondered
if you had seen it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, do
you desire to reply to Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE KIEFER: To answer first
what would happen on the adoption of sec-
tion 7 as proposed, the Committee has
already recommended that there be a period
in the transitory provisions that would
allow for the legislature to close the door
where it thought desirable. But I also rise
in opposition to this motion to make one
further point.
I have heard from Delegate Gallagher
and several other delegates that this Com-
mittee did not consider this, that we have
gone into this thing just haphazardly. In
the first place I want to explain we have
not gone into this matter haphazardly.
We heard testimony and we made studies
of this subject and I want to report to you,
ladies and gentlemen, that there are three
ways in which this matter of sovereign im-
munity has been eroded away. One is by
constitutional recognition that the legisla-
|
