|
that the B&O Railroad h'as already won
one case involving the preservation of this
exemption on the basis that an attempt by
the General Assembly or by the Constitu-
tion to impair its prior rights relating to
the taxation exemption was a violation of
the contract clause of the federal Con-
stitution.
I think that we have at last arrived at
the point where we have carried over the
intent and meaning and impact of the
prior section, that is Article 3, section 48
of the old Constitution, and kept it as
much intact as possible, without on the
face of the language violating the federal
Constitution.
Hopefully, therefore, I would urge the
adoption. I am sorry that this has been so
involved, but Delegate Chabot did raise the
point the other evening as did Delegate
Gleason and I think hopefully that this
takes care of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any dis-
cussion?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Could I ask
Delegate Gallagher a question about his
amendment to the abominable clause?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher,
do you yield?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: If the State
acting under this clause does something
that offends Article 1, section 10, impair-
ment obligation contract clause of the fed-
eral Constitution it would be unconstitu-
tional. If it does not act unconstitutionally,
it would not be constitutional. Why do we
have to put this nonsense in here?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I appre-
ciate the statement of the obvious. It has
never been so patently put, I might say to
the delegate.
The answer is this, that we are fore-
warning the General Assembly and anyone
who desires to enter into litigation that we
had no intention to act illegally; and fur-
thermore, we do not want this entire sec-
tion to fall because one part of it may be
found to contravene the Constitution of the
United States. Therefore we say ahead of
time, we will do good and avoid evil, and
we would like to pick up all the benefits
that flow from following the natural law
in this respect.
|
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I was not
consulted about this amendment and I take
a very dim view of it, I may say. It seems
to me that either as Delegate Scanlan has
said, that it is a statement of the obvious,
or it is an attempt to tie the hands of the
legislature in the dealing with this problem
insofar as they may be able to deal with it.
I again repeat that this section in haec
verba was adopted as a compromise in 1892
with the B&O Railroad, and I think it is
extremely dangerous to sling in here ex-
traneous matter which seems to me to be
completely unnecessary, and may have the
effect of changing the whole force and
effect of this compromise agreement.
I would urge you to vote against the
amendment and leave the thing the way it
was before.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Pullen,
will you wait just a moment?
I think perhaps Delegate Gallagher, out
of a sense of delicacy maybe, has refrained
from advising you that the suggested lan-
guage was suggested by the Chair.
The question was raised by Delegate
Chabot some days ago. The history con-
cerning this section is indeed very compli-
cated, as many of you have already been
told. I do not know that anybody could,
from memory today tell you precisely the
history of the old dispute.
The Chair was concerned about the point
that Delegate Chabot made, which was, al-
though a finely-drawn point, one which
perhaps could cause difficulty.
The problem arises not with the diffi-
culty and not with the language of the 1867
Constitution, but with using the language
of the 1867 Constitution in the 1968 Con-
stitution. When that language included the
word "hereafter", and "hereafter" would
seem to refer, if it is included without
further language, to after 1968. That ob-
viously cannot be the case, and for that
reason the Committee suggested the inclu-
sion of the words "now or hereafter"
which raised the question in Delegate Cha-
bot's mind that that might go back too far
and he suggested that he use the date in
1891, or thereafter. The Chair suggested
that while he could not be sure, he had a
very distinct recollection that there was
either a settlement act or a settlement ar-
rangement that may be was not embodied
in legislation in 1848. There was definitely
a settlement act in 1878, and another one
in 1890.
|
