|
in a variety of ways. We leave this up to
the presiding officer to put in by rule, but
the important thing is that when you send
a man to Annapolis to represent you and
when you ask him how he stands and what
he believes on a particular piece of legisla-
tion and what did he do about it, you have
a chance then to go and look at the record
instead of just listening to what he says, or
somebody else says, about it.
This is a very fundamental part of rais-
ing the visibility of the legislative process.
I very much regret the leaders of the legis-
lature do not support this. I think after it
has been in existence a year if it ever gets
in existence, they will wonder how they
ever did without it.
This afternoon I talked to the official
reporter of the United States Senate. I told
him precisely the problem we have in this
Convention. He said, "Aren't those people
concerned about the legislative history, the
traditions that support a piece of legisla-
tion." He said he did not understand how
they could possibly get by without it. He
said your problem is much simpler than
his, because he deals with 535 members of
the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate. In Annapolis there
is a much smaller number. There they are
in session all the year long practically.
Here they are in session ninety days. It is
an entirely different situation. The people
have a right to know what is going on. The
lawyers have a right to know what a law
means. The judges have a right to know
what a law means. There is no cause for
knocking1 this out of the constitution. I
would hope this amendment is supported.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I am opposed to keeping this provi-
sion about the transcript in, not because of
its cost which may or may not be excessive.
If it were a good thing I would not consider
that the cost would be a controlling factor,
but rather I think it is of dubious utility.
I simply do not think it is worthwhile pre-
serving the debates on the floor of this
General Assembly. We have never had this
in Maryland before. The courts have de-
cided questions involving legislative intent
from the beginning of our statehood with-
out the benefit of such debates and the
courts rely upon various things, such as the
reports of the commissions that recommend
laws. They will have available the reports
of the committees when these bills are
brought .to the floor. In the case of the rules
of court which are adopted, they have the
commentary, and the statement of intent
|
following each section which is now pub-
lished as a separate article of the Code.
I just fear that if this happens, the work
of the legislature will be slowed down and
encumbered by something which will be of
no value whatsoever because what you
hear in debates is very much like what we
hear on the floor here, a lot of conflicting
views and no one can get much help from
that, I gather, as to what the real intent of
the legislation was. It just seems to me
that it is a futile proposition which would
interfere with the real work of the legis-
lature, and other devices will be found
which will more clearly indicate what that
intent is.
T,HE PRESIDENT: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I move the previous
question.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a motion
that the previous question be ordered on
the adoption of Amendment No. 11.
All those in favor, signify by saying
Aye; contrary, No.
The Ayes have it. It is so ordered.
For what reason does Delegate Gleason
rise ?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Parliamentary
inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Will you state
the amendment for us again before we
vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The question
arises on the adoption of Amendment No.
11 to Committee Recommendation LB-1,
LB-2, and LB-3 as amended by S&D-16.
Amendment No. 11 deletes from page 7,
section 3.19, line 17, the words "and for a
transcript of its debates," so that if the
words are deleted, section 3.19 would read
"Each House of the General Assembly
shall provide by rule for a current daily
journal of its proceedings which shall be
open to public inspection at all reasonable
times."
If the amendment is deleted, the addi-
tional words would remain in section 3.19.
The question arises now on the adoption of
Amendment No. 11. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the Amendment No. 11, in favor
of the deletion. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted?
Delegate Boileau.
|
