|
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have one ques-
tion with regard to section 42. It indicates
there that the bonded indebtedness is
limited to indebtedness authorized by the
General Assembly or any local legislative
body.
I assume that would include municipali-
ties and counties. However, how about the
state authorities, and also any particular
agency of the State?
I am thinking about toll commissions,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis-
sion, and other agencies like that which
may have been set up.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hard-
wicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It is my
impression that these are authorized by
the General Assembly, but I would like
Judge Sherbow to confirm that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I must admit
I was reading something entirely different.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I direct your
attention to section 42 on page 14.
Delegate Grant calls attention to the
fact that the section refers to bonds and
other evidences of indebtedness authorized
by the General Assembly or by any local
legislative body prior to the effective date
of this constitution, and he asks what
about bonds issued by various authorities
such as revenue authorities.
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would as-
sume they would be covered in the same
way.
THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, I
take it the answer is that the bonds neces-
sarily are authorized either by an enabling
act of the General Assembly, or by an en-
abling ordinance of the local legislative
body. In either event, they are within the
gambit of this section.
This does not say bonds authorized in
the sense of issued, but authorized in the
sense of authorized to be issued.
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I would assume
by that that presumably as long as a body
by some route or other could draw its
ultimate authority from the General As-
sembly, then any discretion that they
|
might have for the issuance of bonds
would be satisfactory and, secondly, that
any body such as the Washington Sub-
urban Sanitary Commission which draws
its authorization from Prince Georges
County and Montgomery County, and they
from the General Assembly, would like-
wise also.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is
confusion on two points. I think you are
reading the word "authorized" differently
from what is intended. Secondly, I do not
think you have clearly in mind the pur-
pose to be served by this section.
The question arose in this matter either
by act of General Assembly or act of the
local legislative body, someone, either a
county, comptroller, or the State, has
been authorized to issue bonds. The bonds
have not yet been issued. The question is:
does the pre-existing authority, statutory
authority to issue the bonds, continue
after the death of the old Constitution, or
does the authority to issue the bonds now
depend upon the new constitution?
This section is intended to say that with
respect to the bonds heretofore authorized,
but not issued, when bond counsels look at
the requirements of the law to see whether
or not the requirements have been com-
plied with, they will look at the law in
effect when the bonds were authorized,
and not the law in effect now.
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I follow you. I
think with that statement in the record it
should be sufficient, then.
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions concerning section 42?
Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Not con-
cerning 42, but in section 6, there is a
cross reference which I believe is wrong,
on line 12. I think it should read "In Sec-
tion 5.24."
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: That is
correct. We have made a note of that, and
I hope that you will too, Delegate Penni-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: In line 12, section
5.25 should read 5.24.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: That is
correct.
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions as to any of the sections in the
schedule of transitional provisions?
|
