|
We had the research assistants check the
problem and there were no constitutional
amendments between 1867 and 1891 dealing
with this question. It is impossible to check
to ascertain that there are: there are no
other settlement acts affecting the question
prior to 1891 and no settlement agreements
with the executive.
For this reason, although it is true, as
Delegate Scanlan says, that the sentence
states the opposite, it does in addition, how-
ever, make it abundantly clear that in this
section the Constitutional Convention is en-
deavoring to put, not only the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad, but other corporations
in the same category, in exactly the same
situation as all other corporations to the
extent that it can constitutionally and the
only constitutional prohibition is the con-
tract clause.
Hence, the amendment takes out the
troublesome words "now or hereafter".
Without some qualification that would mean
that to a certain extent it would have un-
constitutional application. To make it clear
that we intend no unconstitutional appli-
cation and avoid the risk that the Supreme
Court would say that because it is uncon-
stitutional in part the entire section falls,
the suggestion was made that the language
be added here.
I think we have debated this section up
and down and back and forth to the N'th
degree, and I do not think any further dis-
cussion is necessary. I think we should act
on it.
Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
in order to bring a little relaxation and to
prolong the session, I was going to suggest
to the President that being a preacher's
son I understand the meaning of the here-
after, but I thought that for the purpose,
for enlightenment of the layman, Mr. Gal-
lagher might give us a dissertation on the
natural law.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther dissertation?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, it seems to me that if we could di-
vide this amendment into the two parts, the
first part would strike out language, "that
are now or may hereafter be", and I may
be wrong but I believe we revert then to
our old original language.
THE PRESIDENT: That would not be
true. The word "hereafter" is in the 1867
Constitution.
|
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: If we
would strike out everything and leave it
exactly as it were in the 1867 Constitution,
amended in 1891, it would seem to me that
a fair constitutional construction would be
that having continued the old language in
its entirety we have meant to continue
rather than add something new. I think
that would be the constitutional construc-
tion, and in any event this last section
which says "except to the extent" because
if there is any question legally as to the
application of this provision, and it goes
into court and the court may construe it
then, and I think we would be just in the
same position as without this language or
with this language.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer, the suggestion you m'ade was con-
sidered by the staff, and Mr. Walker Lewis,
suggested I think perhaps in desperation
finally that we revert to the original lan-
guage of the 1867 Constitution, which would
not be at all the language of this section
with these words stricken out, but a great
deal more besides, but then if we did that,
we would have to add another sentence,
which would also perhaps be subject to the
criticism that it too stated the obvious, but
nevertheless would be essential.
The matter has been considered by the
various people who will have worked on it.
I do not suppose they will ever have abso-
lute agreement on what is desired.
Is there any further discussion?
Delegate Gallagher, do you have any fur-
ther comment?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, sir, ex-
cept that this is the end of the line.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: In view of
the Chair's explanation, I would like to
withdraw my objection and leave the liti-
gation to be handled in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there further dis-
cussion?
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 7 to Committee Report
S&D-18.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
amendment; a vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
|
