|
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The B&O
has already decided to merge upon the
completion of the formality of filing ar-
ticles of merger, and it shall have lost the
tax exemption at that time. That is the
situation under the present law, even if
this provision and constitution is never
passed. That same situation, hopefully,
will occur after the passage of this consti-
tution, because it is designed to achieve
the same effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gleason,
Delegate Gallagher's time has expired. Do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE GLEASON: I want to
raise a further question. A law can be
changed, but a constitutional provision is
a different thing, and it is this aspect that
bothers me.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Well, just
a brief review: The B&O got this exemp-
tion by virtue of an 1826 charter grant,
and the General Assembly has been trying
to put the B&O back in the same status
with all other corporations of like character
since 1851.
The Constitutions of 1851, 1864 and 1867
had provisions to accomplish the identical
result, except the last sentence was added
in 1891 by constitutional amendment.
All we do here is keep the gain and the
legal rights, responsibilities and privileges
on both sides after the passing of the con-
stitutional amendment as it existed prior
to the passage.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther discussion?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
would it be in order for me to ask another
question of Delegate Gallagher?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher's
time has expired. Is it just one question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I hope it is one
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher,
do you yield for one more question?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: When this
amendment was originally enacted any
|
right, privilege or advantage that may have
been granted before that date could never-
theless be taken advantage of by the B&O.
If we are intending to preserve the same
situation, I wonder whether or not we are
in the position now of saying that a right
granted by a pre-1891 statute, the exercise
of such a right which would not have
caused them to lose the tax exemption be-
fore this provision, would now cause them
to lose the tax exemption?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
say we have just as much a right to do so
in 1968 as the people had in 1891 when
they added the grandfather clause, and you
take advantage of the privileges, the doing
of that act constitutes a surrender of the
tax exemption. The State does not force
the B&O to do it. They say if you do, this
is the price. The B&O has decided to. We
are not interfering with the contractual
obligation. We are saying what has been
agreed upon if formalized, will result in
the same loss of exemption that would have
occurred under the present Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: All of this discus-
sion is a repetition of the very full dis-
cussion that occurred in the Committee of
the Whole, and the questions indicate that
we are losing sight completely of the his-
tory that was given by the committee chair-
man, by Delegate Henderson and others at
that time.
The significant thing is that the present
constitutional provision grows out of the
so-called settlement act of 1890 which was
a compromise agreed upon by the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad, and the State of
Maryland, and embodied in the legislation
and the constitutional provision. All that
the section seeks to do is to continue the
effect of that act as embodied in the Con-
stitution of 1867. The amendment that is
suggested now, Amendment No. 3, in no
way alters this situation, it merely is con-
tinuing the same effect, the additional
words are necessary simply because when
you say hereafter in a Constitution in 1967
you mean after 1967, whereas the intent
is that it is after a much earlier date.
Is there any further discussion?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I will make it
in the form of a statement, not a question,
since I promised to ask only one question.
However, in 1891 what the State did was
to say not that if you take advantage of
any of the corporate laws, but only if you
take advantage of new grants or new
privileges or advantages, those granted
|
