|
With that constitutional recognition,
however, comes some very serious prob-
lems in terms of deciding the amount of
damages that should be awarded. With no
body of law in Maryland despite the fact
that courts outside of Maryland have made
decisions in the area, each case must neces-
sarily be litigated to the Court of Appeals
on its own peculiar facts if justice truly is
to be done both to the entire State who is
paying the bill and to the recipient of the
damage. This means delay, it means un-
certainty, it means confusion.
Now, it is quite true, as Delegate Kiefer's
memorandum indicates, that it is possible
to synthesize conclusions of the courts in
other states. Being true, it is perfectly
possible for the legislature to sit down and
write reasonable rules, reasonable legisla-
tive definitions of the term damage. By so
doing, the rights of those people about
whom many delegates are so deeply con-
cerned are amptly protected. The rights of
all the people are amptly protected and
what is even more significant, a certain
clement of certainty is introduced into the
law which will permit condemnation pro-
ceedings to proceed in due orderly fashion.
I suggest to you, however, inarticulate
as the attorney general's opinion may be,
he speaks with more authority in this field
than anybody else in the State of Mary-
land because within his office is and has
been historically the burden of condemna-
tion. If he says that it will probably double
the costs of taking, he may be right. If
it is necessary to double the costs of tak-
ing to be fair to the people, so be it, but
all I urge this Convention to do is to
permit this somewhat radical change in our
laws of eminent domain to be done in an
orderly fashion; to wit, through legisla-
tion, not left to the ten or fifteen year
period which would be necessary if judicial
regulations are to spell out the damages.
Anybody involved knows what a chaotic
condition this can be in the law of emi-
nent domain. I would like you to consider
the fact that under the proposed amend-
ment we preserve the concept constitu-
tionally. At the same time we permit defini-
tions to be written intelligibly for the im-
mediate present as well as for the future.
I would urge you to support the amend-
ment.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Bamberger.
|
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Would
Delegate Adkins yield to a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a second. He
has time for just one short question.
Delegate Adkins, will you yield?
DELEGATE ADKINS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bam-
berger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: As a spon-
sor of the amendment, Delegate Adkins, do
you agree with the intent, as I under-
stand it, expressed by Delegate James;
that is, that this would not permit the
legislature to abolish any compensation or
property which was damaged but not
taken, but merely permit the legislature to
define what is damage, absent the taking,
and to define the amount and measure of
compensation?
DELEGATE ADKINS: Yes, I do. I
think it is quite clear that there is a con-
stitutional right to be compensated for
property which is damaged, but not taken.
The purport of this amendment is to
permit the General Assembly to specify
the limits within which that damage may
be compensable, but I would read it not as
giving the right to completely abolish the
concept or in other words to negative the
constitutional import.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Marvin
Anderson.
DELEGATE ANDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to oppose the amendment not-
withstanding the distinguished gentlemen
who have sponsored the amendment and
spoken in its favor.
What we are trying to do here is some-
thing that should have been done many
years ago in the State of Maryland. We
are here, supposedly, to correct the de-
ficiencies of the old constitution. Well,
here is one in all its glory for over one
hundred years neither the legislature nor
anyone else has seen fit to correct, the
inequity which has prevailed.
Massachusetts as far back as 1832 cor-
rected this situation. Illinois, I think, in
1870. Twenty-seven states since 1870 have
adopted this identical language which we
propose in this new constitution.
Now, what we do not want to do is to
put this responsibility in the hands of the
legislature. We want to put it in the con-
stitution where we know that it win be and
we will not have to wait for the legislature
|
