clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2404   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

2404 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 14]

ington, D. C. It is very rare that I have
observed Delegate Scanlan speaking even
once on a subject about which he knows
little.

Today you have been treated to an even
more rare occurrence. Delegate Scanlan has
spoken two or three times on a subject of
which he knows nothing and he has asked
questions also. We next heard from big-city
lawyer Moser who spoke twice on the sub-
ject and also asked questions.

Then we moved to big-city lawyer Gallag-
her who is now smiling at me across the
room and from there to big-city lawyer
Bamberger who not only has spoken twice
on the subject but has asked a number of
questions. But if I am not mistaken, he is a
partner in the law firm which is getting
a retainer from the City of Baltimore and
one of whose jobs is to secure the defeat of
this particular amendment.

You, then, were treated to a discussion
between big-city lawyer Bamberger and big city lawyer Moser. They, of course, were
discussing the Clagett amendment and try-
ing to figure out which way to vote in order
to enable the City of Baltimore to receive
special treatment.

You will notice at the conclusion of that,
that Delegate Bamberger leaned over his
desk to confer with Delegate Moser and
that then both Delegate Bamberger and
Delegate Moser voted against the Clagett
amendment which would have required uni-
form treatment throughout the State. I say
do not put it in the constitution.

This will allow Maryland to do whatever
it needs to to protect the subdivisions.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I rise on a
statement of personal privilege. I feel I
have to reply to the big lawyer from what-
ever place he comes from.

I have no idea what may be the position
of any partners or associates in my law
office or of the City of Baltimore with
respect to sovereign! immunity.

For myself, I am opposed to the concept
of sovereign immunity. My only position is
that I believe that it is a question on which
we do not have the facts and I therefore
only urge that we leave the question to be
decided by the General Assembly when they
had some idea of what grievance it inflicted
upon the people and what cost it might in-
flict upon political subdivisions.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any further discussions?

DELEGATE M. SMITH: I am a country
lawyer from one of the smallest counties
here. I consistently represent plaintiffs. I
do not like the doctrine of sovereign im-
munity. However, I think there is a re-
sponsible way to proceed and the respon-
sible way is by the adoption of this
amendment.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Is there any further discussion?

DELEGATE BENNETT: Parliamentary
inquiry. If this amendment is defeated and
it can be defeated, the question recurs on
the Majority Report of the Committee, does
it not?

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
No, sir, I do not think so. Further amend-
ments could be offered, but there would be
no further vote on section 7.

DELEGATE BENNETT: The only way
to get the excellent language in the Com-
mittee Report, assuming this amendment is
approved, would be to offer another amend-
ment resorting to the —

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
If this amendment is approved, it will take
the place of section 7 in the Committee
Recommendation.

DELEGATE BENNETT: You would
have to defeat this amendment and all
other amendments in order to get the com-
mittee language.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
It can only change by amendments. When
the amendments cease, we can pass on to
the next section.

DELEGATE BENNETT: I confess,
then, I do not really know how to vote. I
want the committee language in its original
form. Now how to get that, I do not know.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Miller.

DELEGATE MILLER: Mr. Chairman,
is is not true that if you wanted section 7
in its original form as stated by the Com-
mittee, you would vote no on all amend-
ments to section 7 so that section 7 would
remain in the Majority Report?

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
If this is defeated and there are no further
amendments, then we will have section 7 as
it is.

Delegate Churchill Murray.



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2404   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives