|
THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment No. 3 is
withdrawn.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 3.17(ab), Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, do you consider it necessary to for-
mally suggest that on line 30 the comma
after the word "act" and the word "and"
be deleted, and on line 31 the comma will
be deleted, or would the Style Committee
take care of that?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be
well if the Style Committee understands
that the sense of that clause would be ex-
pressed if you deleted the comma, and
word "and" in line 30, the comma in line
31, and the comma after "character" in
line 33.
The Committee on Style has noted it.
You have an amendment, Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: Mr. Chairman, I
have one question that I wanted to ask the
Chairman of the Committee in regard to
this because of the difference in the lan-
guage between this and section 48. In the
old section 48, directing your attention to
lines 42 and 43, where you have the date
of December 3, 1891, in the old Constitu-
tion, it just referred to the fact that the
General Assembly shall not alter or amend
the character of any corporation existing at
the time of the adoption of this article,
and presumably the adoption of this ar-
ticle was in 1867, and not 1891.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, that is
not correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The sen-
tence beginning "with the General Assem-
bly" which exists on line 41 was added by
the 1890 General Assembly, and submitted
to the electorate and voted upon favorably
on December 3, 1891, so that entire sen-
tence beginning with "The General Assem-
bly" was an 1891 constitutional amendment
to the earlier two sentences which appeared
in the 1851, 1864 and 1867 Constitutions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further ques-
tions, Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: I follow what you
intend. However, the wording in the old
Constitution refers to the article, and not
to the amendment, and the adoption of the
article was in 1867. The adoption of the
amendment was in 1891. I just wanted to
get the record straight as to exactly what
we meant.
|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You are
suggesting that the date should be earlier
in time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I am suggesting
that as the present Constitution reads, if
it is the intention to embrace the present
constitutional language, the adoption of the
article was in 1867, and it does not appear
to be conditioned upon the adoption of the
amendment in 1891 as it is in your pro-
posed document.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I see the
difficulty, but I would doubt that you could
pass a constitutional amendment in 1891
with respect to the conduct of corporations
prior to that time, and retroactively re-
move an exemption when the statutory or
constitutional authority did not exist until
1891.
I really think the germane date is 1891,
the date of the adoption of the amendment
to what was then .Article III, section 48,
with only the first two sentences.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I still suggest,
then, that that be made abundantly clear
on the record, the exact date that was
intended.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I will.
And also I will take a look at the acts of
1890, because I did not notice the use of
the article in that act. It may have been
a carry-over after the constitutional amend-
ment was passed. A change may have been
made.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, I am also inter-
ested in trying to get through with this
section. I would like to suggest to Delegate
Scanlan perhaps he could accomplish what
he has in mind by just adding the four
words "except for municipal purposes".
Then it reads exactly as it was.
Even though I am not for what you are
suggesting, I think we could put that in
and vote on it, and perhaps finish this
article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion, for
what purpose did you rise?
DELEGATE MARION: I had a ques-
tion for Chairman Gallagher.
|
