|
not have the usual concern about people
reading the constitution and seeing at a
glance what it means.
The B&O lawyers will know the back-
ground very well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Delegate Gal-
lagher, I was wondering why we would
not at least cut lines 30 to 36 dealing with
the grant of legislative corporate charter.
Since that is taken care of in LB-2 under
3.17 it does not seem to have any appli-
cation to the problem of the B&O.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Well, we
say that the legislature shall not pass spe-
cial laws where general laws exist. This
section was put in in 1851 as a companion
piece to comparable language in the 1851
constitution. I do think that they balance
each other and should be read together.
If you did not have the allowance of spe-
cial laws, I do not think it would be neces-
sary to keep the first two sentences in.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
let us see if we cannot spread this around
a bit.
Section 25, Article 77 of the Code, in
respect to the approval of schools, has this
statement: "Provided that nothing in this
section shall be construed as having ap-
plication to any school or college that is
now operating under a charter granted by
the legislature of Maryland".
Now, there have been attempts in the
past few years to revive charters that were
given by the legislature to begin the op-
eration of schools. I wonder if this par-
ticular provision would not add an addi-
tional group to the problem that you have
here.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think it
could, Delegate Pullen, yes, depending pri-
marily upon what special advantages were
conferred by the charters granted by the
legislature prior to 1851.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: May I answer
that by saying that certain schools may
and have not come under the provision of
supervision or control under that particular
provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, I notice that yesterday the stock of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad declined
three-quarters of a point, and that one of
the issues of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
road likewise decreased considerably, and
I wonder if the release of this report of
yours had any bearing on that, or whether
you know of any conflict of interest that
might be involved here.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
see a head-on collision in the matter, to be
frank about it. I do not think we affect the
stock market.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
continuing with the point that Delegate
Bothe made, to wit, the applicability of
Section 3.17 (A) and its presence really
making 3.17 (A) (b) unnecessary, is or is it
not true that the General Assembly might
pass a general law which would state in
effect from this point on corporations shall
be granted by legislative act?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: It could.
DELEGATE CASE: And isn't what you
are doing here an attempt to directly meet
that and forestall it?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I
think that is the effect of this language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Now, with respect
to the B&O, has the Supreme Court of the
United States held in effect that it is within
the sovereign power of the state to grant
away in perpetuity a part of its inherent
sovereign powers?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Su-
preme Court of the United States has not
ruled specifically on this matter, but the
Maryland Court of Appeals has specifically
so ruled — it is an inviolable contract.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Has the point ever
been made, as far as you know, that no
legislative act can bind the state in per-
petuity in an area such as this?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I see Judge
Henderson rise, and I should say that
Judge Henderson was involved in the Court
|
