clear space clear space clear space white space
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 471   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 8] DEBATES 471
for the purpose of providing facilities and
organizing a workable body of full-time
legislators who are able to devote their
time and energy to representation of the
people, submitting this amendment creates
a well-organized legislative body similar to
that in sister states which utilize this type
of organization.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
Delegate Gallagher.
man, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to speak
against the proposed amendment. I should
say at the outset that this matter of 40-80
was twice considered by the Committee on
the Legislative Branch. It failed to receive
a majority on the first vote by a ten to ten
tie, and then on the second vote it failed
by a vote of 13 to 7.
In supporting the position of the Com-
mittee, I should like to point out that the
recommendation of 105 and 35 is quite
close to the national median which I men-
tioned yesterday, that is, one hundred in
the House and 38 in the Senate.
I think, too, that the members of the
Committee of the Whole should have cer-
tain data before them before the vote is
taken. That is this: according to the fig-
ures contained in the Eagleton Report,
from 1953 to 1966 the House Judiciary
Committee and House Ways and Means
Committee, which is now composed in the
aggregate of 61 members, handled approxi-
mately 80 per cent of all the legislation
that went into the House hopper, so that
we had, therefore, about 40 per cent of the
membership of the House on those two
committees handling 80 per cent of the
total legislation.
Now, through 1966, the committee of the
House were I3 in number, and as a result
of restructuring the committee system for
the 1967 session the number of committees
in the House was reduced from 13 to 9.
However, the House Judiciary Committee
continued to handle 42.9 per cent of all the
bills that went into the House, and the
Ways and Means Committee in 1967 con-
sidered 27.4 per cent of all the legislation.
Between those two committees, even with
the reduction of other committees from 13
to 9, 70.3 per cent of the total legislation
that went in the House was handled, while
the other 7 committees handled only 29.7
per cent of the legislation.
Now, the Committee of the Legislative
Branch, in recommending 105 could of
course allow for a third committee compar-
able to the newly created committee in the
Senate on Economic Affairs, which would
consist of another 30 or 31 members. Both
the House Judiciary and Ways and Means
Committees could continue to have a slight
increase, so that, therefore, you could uti-
lize all 105 members of the House, if that
amendment were to prevail on three major
It is true that the Eagleton report sug-
gests that the nine committees presently
existing in the House of Delegates be re-
duced to five, but I think it is only fair to
say that in all probability, no matter what
is done, Ways and Means and Judiciary
will continue to handle approximately 70
per cent. of all the House legislation.
It is interesting to note on the Senate
side that after the new Committee on Eco-
nomic Affairs was formed, Judicial Pro-
ceedings and Finance in 1967 handled 72.5
per cent of the legislation, whereas in the
prior 14 years it had handled approxi-
mately 90 per cent of all the legislation
that went through the Senate. The creation
of the third major committee did substan-
tially establish an opportunity to handle
roughly one-third of the total bills that
went through the Senate.
What I am suggesting here, therefore,
is that it would seem that a House that is
a little larger than 80 would be able to
utilize the full potentialities of all the mem-
Turning now to the question of cost, I
should like to provide the following infor-
mation to the members of the Committee of
the Whole.
At the present time, the salary of 43
Senators and 142 Delegates at the rate of
$2,400 per year, plus the $1,750 per diem,
has an aggregate cost to the people of
Maryland of $767,750.
That is the present payroll for members
of the House and Senate under the exist-
ing 43-Senator, 142-member House. If the
amendment now before you were adopted,
the 40-80 amendment, and presumably with
an $8,000 salary, and no per diem during
the regular session, the cost would be $960,-
000, a very slight increase over the $768,000
now paid, just a little less than $200,000.
More interesting, I think, is the fact that
if there were an $8,000 per annum salary
for 35 Senators and 105 Delegates, which
is the majority committee recommendation,
that cost would be only $1,120,000 per year,
not even—well, roughly $350,000 over and

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 471   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives