|
THE CHAIRMAN: The question arises
on the motion —
DELEGATE CASE: A point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was los-
ing sight of the fact we are in the Commit-
tee of the Whole. The motion is not in
order.
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members, I want to speak
in opposition to this amendment because
I feel for two reasons that the wording of
the transitory provision is perfectly
proper. It only delays the matter for one
year, and if we look at the provisions of
the damage clause, it says, except in the
manner provided by law. Certainly the leg-
islature ought to have at least one year's
opportunity to provide for those exceptions
and to say where it may be needed and
where it may not. The concept is good.
I am in favor of it.
Another thing is this : I have not
shared the horrors and fears that we are
going to bankrupt the State by this new
concept of damages, but nevertheless we
must realize that there are some areas of
damages and some compensation that must
be paid. The State must set up its re-
serves for that. Any corporation or in-
surance company operating prudently al-
ways has to set up reserves for losses, and
this will only give them one year to set up
those reserves for these probable losses.
I think it is only fair that we give the
private corporations condemning, or the
State as the case may be, that one year's
opportunity to set up their budgets. I
think it is only sound fiscal arrangement
for us to do it, and I think the amendment
should be defeated for those two reasons.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koger.
DELEGATE KOGER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, I am very much op-
posed to this amendment. I sincerely be-
lieve that if we permit people to sue the
state for damages, it will create a con-
siderable amount of confusion. When you
sue for damages it is difficult to determine
what amount you are going to sue for.
Now, we find the same situation when
we consider damages resulting from a suit.
You can determine the amount of property
damage. When you think in terms of a
named damage, you can measure but you
cannot measure the amount of suit when
it applies to damages.
|
I would be very much in favor of this
particular section, but I am not very much
in favor of allowing the section to stand,
without in some way postponing it. The
State has to get itself together and it has
to set up reserves and it has to have some
way of measuring the amount of what it
is going to pay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for tli e question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 1 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-13.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 1. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 26 votes in the affirmative
and 83 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Delegate Chabot, do you desire to offer
your amendment M?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE^ CHAIRMAN: The pages will
please distribute amendment M. This will
be Amendment No. 2.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 2
to Committee Recommendation No. GP-13
by Delegate Chabot:
On page 2, section 3, Delayed Effect of
Certain Sections, strike out all of subsec-
tion (b), comprising all of lines 37 through
44, inclusive.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
submitted by Delegate Chabot.
Is there a second?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Betty
Miller seconds.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: About thirty
years ago, Mr. Justice Cardozo indicated
that protection against double jeopardy is
|
