I do not think we should stick out our
neck. What happens if the unicameral sys-
tem does not work? Do we have a system
that will last for many, many years, not
as an effective system? I believe the bicam-
eral system has been effective and we
should stick with it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Needle?
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to speak in favor of the unicameral
legislature. The arguments which have
been well documented in Minority Report
No. 1, and well-stated by all those who ex-
pressed their views here today. I will not
express them again ad nauseum. How-
ever, since we have the unique opportunity
in this body to take a giant stride into the
future, one of the great opportunities for
us to make a real advancement, I suggest
to you that the General Assembly has rec-
ognized the virtues and desirabilities of a
unicameral form of deliberative body.
I suggest that they now have the tricam-
eral system by virtue of the conference
committee, that all-powerful committee to
which too many bills are referred. It is a
single deliberative body.
This is also true with regard to the
Legislative Council. I submit that if the
General Assembly were so convinced of the
virtues of the bicameral system, they would
have created a bicameral Constitutional
Convention. I shudder to think that this
Constitutional Convention would have to
labor under the disadvantage of having to
go across the hall. I suggest to you that if
you are convinced of the merits of that
proposition, do not be inconsistent. Support
the unicameral system.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
wish to comment briefly on two of the argu-
ments by analogy that have been advanced
by those in favor of the unicameral sys-
tem.
First, the example of this Constitutional
Convention. I doubt that any of those who
have spoken for the unicameral system
would say that we should do away with
the gubernatorial veto merely because the
governor cannot veto what we do here. I
doubt that any of them would say every |
enactment of the legislature must be sub-
ject to popular referendum willy-nilly
merely because what we do here is subject
to popular referendum.
As to the analogy of the business corpo-
ration, I think it should be clear that there
are many different reasons for the exist-
ence of and different purposes of private
business organizations and the running of
government. Among those many differences
is the concept that in the running of gov-
ernment the concern is what is best for the
people and not in making money, and votes
cast by the people and not by stock. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Winslow.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise with some trepidation for I am
one of those political scientists that some
delegates here distrust. Forty years ago,
before most of the people in this assembly
were appreciative that there was such a
thing as a bicameral legislature, I spent
some time in this building making a study
of the system of legislation and its pro-
cedure.
Delegate Scanlan has suggested that
what we ought to do is not live by theory
but live by experience. I accept that. Forty
years ago I came to the conclusion that the
General Assembly of Maryland was not
doing an effective job. I made a suggestion
at that time that what we ought to do was
to go to a unicameral system. This, I re-
peat, was 40 years ago. I have kept a
weather eye on the General Assembly from
that time to this and I have as yet no indi-
cation that I will change my opinion. The
experience of the last 40 years in this
State would indicate that there is some-
thing wrong in our legislative system and
that we had better change it.
I was particularly entertained, I may
say, by Delegate Gilchrist in his remarks
about Nebraska. I shall not raise a ques-
tion about the historical accuracy of some
of his remarks, but I suggest two things:
first, you will have noticed that before he
sat down he introduced some of the reforms
taking place m Nebraska and answered
that the Eagleton Study will take care of
that in Maryland. What has the Maryland
legislature been doing for forty years that
they have to wait for the Eagleton Study
to do these things which the Nebraska uni-
cameral legislature by his own statement
has already done?
In connection with Nebraska—I do not |
