who is against change for the sake of
change. I am truly amazed to hear these
people talk for the unicameral system. I
think under the present system we have
thrived, in fact I think we have thrived
extremely well, to the extent that I find
that I can hardly find chores for my son to
do around my home because of the ex-
tremely high economic standards that we
have achieved.
I would regret and I will protest change
for the sake of change.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do any other dele-
gates wish to speak on the question?
(There was no response.)
If not, the Chair will recognize succes-
sively Delegate Hanson and Delegate Galla-
gher for ten minutes each for rebuttal.
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Committee:
We have engaged now for sometime in
debate on this question. It is not my desire
to prolong the agony of decision, but there
are a few comments to which I should like
to respond and some things of which 1
would like to remind the delegates.
We are told that the shortcomings that
exist in the bicameral legislature are not
indigenous to the bicameral system but are
mere byproducts of it. I would suggest that
any of the other reforms sought by the
Committee that can be achieved with uni-
cameralism can probably be achieved with
much greater swiftness with unicameralism
after these many years of admitted delay.
We can have the benefits both of a body
that is clearly visible to the public and re-
sponsible to it, and a body which will at-
tract outstanding citizens to public service
because of its elevated prestige in state
government.
I am impressed with the consessions
which the bicameralists have made, but
while, of course, logic is on the side of uni-
cameralism—only a shade, but nonetheless
we bask in that shade—I am also inter-
ested in the history of the bicameralists
who would seem to suggest from analogy
to Nebraska, which we all admit is not
analogous, of course, but would seem to
suggest by analogy to the way in which
unicameralism came into being in that
great State, sandwiched between repeal of
prohibition and an amendment for pari- |
mutuel betting, that somehow the adoption
of unicameralism in Maryland would add
to drinking and gambling.
I think this is perhaps not the intention
of the remark, but it seems to be the impli-
cation of it. It is true, as some have said
here today, that bicameralism can flourish
in a system of equal representation. I
think there is no doubt of it, any constitu-
tional authority to the contrary notwith-
standing. But I think it is also true that a
system of equal representation will be
greatly enhanced through one which pro-
motes effectively, directly, and clearly a
high sense of public responsibility by every
member of the legislative body.
Let us recall to you the arguments with
which we began this debate: first, that we
can have all the reforms necessary to the
legislative branch and indeed improve upon
those in a unicameral system; second, that
there is a need in Maryland in state gov-
ernment for a much stronger and far more
effective legislative branch, and finally that
there is a greater chance for more strength
and unity in a unicameral system, an argu-
ment which has not even been suggested
to be in error by the bicameralists.
We have suggested that the legislative
process would be more clearly understood
and that each individual member of the
legislature would be more clearly account-
able to his constituents in a unicameral
body. We have not heard refutation of this
argument.
We have suggested that a unicameral
body could increase the prestige of the
legislature and thereby tend to attract
more able citizens to its service. We have
not heard discussion of this point.
What we have heard is that bicameralism
is traditional and we are willing to con-
cede that bicameralism is traditional. We
have heard that bicameralism somehow
prevents hasty legislation. But we repeat
the argument and the facts to the con-
trary. We pointed out in the Minority Re-
port, that hasty legislation is encouraged
in the second house by bicameralism if a
bill is given effective and decent consid-
eration in the first house, it cannot reach
the second house until it is too late to be
given careful and deliberate consideration.
We have pointed out that 80 percent of
all bills die in the house of their origin,
which shows that the house of origin does
a much better job of weeding out bad legis-
lation than does the other house to which
it is ultimately referred. |
