the Whole—24 small powerhouses to try to
run the State.
My powerhouse will be attempting to run
the largest land area in the State albeit
with a very scarce population of about 14
people per square mile.
To ask that the people attempting to run
this area not be allowed to have repre-
sentation in the General Assembly, just a
simple representation, to bring to the Gen-
eral Assembly their problems, seems to me
to be the height of lack of logic.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant,
your time is up. We will pause a moment
before recognizing Delegate Gallagher.
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, how much time do I have left, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have five min-
utes to allocate.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I yield
three minutes to Delegate Hanson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to support the recommendation of
the Committee and to oppose the amend-
ment. This amendment is an open invita-
tion to warfare between the House and the
Senate every time something has to be done
over the question of what the size of either
should be.
Since no ratio is fixed, the Senate has
the option of voting to increase its size and
the House has the option of voting to in-
crease its size.
Legislative nature being what history
demonstrates it to be, there is a strong
likelihood neither house will run pell-mell
toward the prospect of decreasing its size.
Thus the Senate could desire to increase
itself to 45, the only cost to it being the
decrease of the House to 135, or the House
could offer magnanimously to increase it-
self to 144, the only cost being seven sena-
tors in the process.
The job we have in this Convention as
the Chairman of the Legislative Branch
Committee pointed out earlier, is to recon-
cile several values. One of these is a repre-
sentational value. How can we best repre-
sent the many interests that make up this
state in the General Assembly.
A second value we have to reconcile with
that is how we can have an effective legis-
lature not only in terms of the size of the |
respective houses to conduct business, but
by removing from the legislative arena
what is not a legislative but a constitu-
tional problem, and that is what should be
the sizes fixed for the House and for the
Senate.
That is our job. That is the job of the
Constitutional Convention. The Committee
has deliberated long on these points. It has
done what can be done in its judgment to
reconcile these two sometimes conflicting
interests.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one half
minute, Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: There is no
way under this plan, proposed as an amend-
ment, that any county can be perpetually
guaranteed a seat or even a seat in 1970.
There is no way under the plan of the Com-
mittee that any person living in any county
in any part of this State will be denied
representation exactly equal to that of
every other citizen.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist,
you have four minutes you can allocate.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: I allocate
two minutes to Delegate Bushong.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bushong.
DELEGATE BUSHONG: Mr. Chair-
man, we feel that this amendment is a
shock absorber. It will give the people who
are losing their representation some time
to get over it.
We think that they should be treated
with some consideration by this Conven-
tion. The legislature at any time it sees
fit hereafter can change this under the
amendment. But it cannot put it up.
1 want to say to this Convention that we
heard the 1966 legislature praised and
praised on the floor of this Convention.
They had 142. The only thing we are ask-
ing is to please not shock these little coun-
ties too fast and too often.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
you have three minutes you can allocate.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I yield
that time to Senator James.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, in analyzing this proposal,
it seems to me that all of the objections
that have been hitherto made to the large
house appertaining here; lack of visibility,
inability to pay compensation, inefficient |
