|
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Chairman Gal-
lagher, in your presentation you noted that
there was some concern if the matter were
left to the transitional legislation.
It was not clear to me today, nor has it
been for the last three weeks, whether this
is a concern about the constitutional au-
thority of the General Assembly to con-
tinue the restrictions on the exemption in
statutes or concern they will yield to the
blandishments of the B&O.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The sug-
gestion has been made that since you can-
not tell a great deal from reading the lan-
guage, the General Assembly would not be
prompted to keep the language in unless it
had the background.
I am not suggesting that the B&O Rail-
road would attempt to lobby the sec-
tion out. I think, more important, that since
this entire matter has had constitutional
dignity since 1851 as amended in 1891, it
would seem a better course of action to
keep it in this constitutional sphere for the
purpose of dealing with the problem.
I do not say that you could not accom-
plish the same thing by transitional legis-
lation. I simply say that there are some
elements of risk there which probably
would not be present if we used the con-
stitutional route.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Let me ask
you a question about another possible
route.
You noted that this provision concerns
primarily, if not exclusively, the B&O. You
also observed that hopefully as a result of
the merger with the C&O the problem will
go away and we will have no need for any
provision.
Under those circumstances, is there any
objection to merely incorporating by ref-
erence in this constitution, and continuing
in effect, the provisions of section 38, Ar-
ticle III of the Constitution of 1867?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You mean
Article 48?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Article 48—
forgive me.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
say there would be this — if no one examines
|
the acts of the General Assembly from
1851 back, then you do not know what
corporations were created which might pos-
sibly enjoy some special benefit, be it a tax
exemption or something otherwise.
In the absence of knowledge in this field,
I would not be disposed to suggest removing
the catch-all in its entirety, because there
may well be other corporations which have
been non-operating but whose charters are
still alive. This could become very valuable
to them under those circumstances, and I
believe, therefore, that I would not be
satisfied with having the B&O capitulate,
so to speak. I think we ought to keep it
alive for whatever other corporation might
have these special benefits.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: My suggestion
was that since the problem is a limited one,
is there any objection in just incorporating
by reference in this constitution the long
provisions of Article 48, section 3, rather
than going through the ancient ritual,
which really does not make a great deal of
sense, especially if the problem is about to
go away.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Well, I
think there is a style objection to it. I
think we have agreed that we will not in-
corporate anything in the constitution by
constitutional reference to another con-
stitution.
Am I not correct here?
THE CHAIRMAN: You are.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I realize that,
but my point was if there was not an ob-
jection of style, would there be an objection
of substance?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I know of
no objection to substance. If this were in
Latin, I would see keeping it just the way
it is forever.
THE CHAIRMAN: The objection is
more than one of style. The reason for it
is so that one may read the constitution
and understand it and not have to resort to
another publication to find out what is in
it.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I understand
the reason for the rule and I agree with it,
but as the Chairman outlined the problem,
this is a problem probably unique to the
B&O, and may go away anyway, so we do
|
