DELEGATE CLAGETT: I rise, Mr.
Chairman, in support of amendment 1 to
section 3.01 of LB-I.
I doubt if there is anyone in this cham-
ber who is more, or has more traditional
ties, or to put it slightly differently, is tied
more by tradition than 1 happen to be.
However, I have been concentratedly ex-
posed to the pros and cons of this ques-
tion, bicameralism versus unicameralism,
for two and a half years. You will recall,
Mr. Chairman, when the first vote was
taken back in 1965 in your Commission,
1 cast a vote in favor of bicameralism.
When the last vote was cast in the latter
part of 1966 and bicameralism was the
sentiment of the majority by a vote of 13
to 12, I was in the minority, the unicameral
column.
I have become convinced, after careful
study and careful consideration of the
merits of the respective arguments, that
the extreme expense, the gross waste of
time, the high cost without value of the bi-
cameral method, was one which we no
longer could follow.
For example, consider the regular work-
ing day, to get some insight into the func-
tioning of our bicameral system, which we
are now saying that we want to hold on to.
Notwithstanding the reduction of commit-
tees in each of the respective houses, both
bodies divide themselves into committees
and those committees are corresponding
ones. A matter is scheduled for hearing be-
fore the house, and because it happens to
be a question which is less than glamorous,
one which involves some technical detail,
some expertise, a group of experts travel
to Annapolis when the scheduled hearing
is set. A group of people accompany them
because of their interest in the matter.
They mill in the floors and about the cor-
ridors, and finally in the late hours of the
evening or the early hours of the morning
they come before the committee, and be-
cause it is a committee, for example, of 32,
and the hour is late there are only 10 or
12 members then present to hear.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett,
you have 20 seconds.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: And so, as we
take the course of that legislation before
the Senate, a week or two later, and the
same effort is duplicated, three or four
members may be present and the matter
heard.
When it finally is voted upon and out of
committee, it then must follow the course |
between houses, and the lobbyists have
their day.
Finally, it is in the last ten days, by the
figures just given, that the matter is con-
sidered.
Is that where we want to continue, or is
that a method we want to continue?
We have a chance to charter a new
course. We have a chance to exert a degree
of leadership and give direction. The re-
sponsibility has been placed on us by the
people who have elected us. They are wait-
ing for us to give them a degree of leader-
ship. Here, on such a vital and construc-
tive matter, we can give it, where stream-
lining of government, the fixing of re-
sponsibility, the clear definition of responsi-
bility can be accomplished.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I would say,
examine your conscience and cast your vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I yield five minutes to Mr. Scanlan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. President,
fellow delegates:
We have heard this afternoon an argu-
ment that has raged for about 50 years in
the papers, mostly of political science jour-
nals, sometimes in law reviews. All the
arguments you have heard today have been
repeated ad nauseum. I suppose one would
have to concede that with one look at logic,
purely and simply, the unicameralists
might have a logic by a shade on their
side, but as Mr. Justice Holmes reminds
us in the first page of his volume on the
common law, the life of the law has not
been logic, it has been experience.
I think the life of state government has
been the same way, and except for the
aberrational excursion of Nebraska, the
background of which was fully presented
by Mr. Gilchrist, no other American State
has ventured down the unicameral path.
I think that it is far more important
that we act on the other things that are
before this Convention for consideration,
single member districts, adequate compen-
sation of legislators, the abolition of local
legislation, adequate sessions to give the
legislature time and attention to do its im-
portant job. These are the things that will
bring real reform to state government
whether unicameral or bicameral. |
