tion of the General Assembly. But there
are other reports which do deal with size.
The report of the Committee for Economic
Development, which our Committee con-
sidered carefully, the model constitution,
the new constitutions of this decade all
urge very strongly that we do not have an
assembly of too large a size or put the
maximum number at 100.
It was on this basis that we considered
the type of General Assembly we would
like.
I would also make one further point:
the issue is not the representation of politi-
cal subdivisions. The issue is the repre-
sentation of people.
The Constitution, this Constitution which
we are writing will rise or fall by the
number of individual votes cast upon the
issue of whether we want it or not and it
will not stand by the number of voters in
political subdivisions.
I would urge that we support the ma-
jority report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette,
do you desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to say that I shall vote for
this amendment. I think I should say that
at this time because the majority report
quite correctly lists my name as one of
those voting for the recommendation.
This proposal has been evolved in in-
formal Committee discussions since the
time of that vote. I should say also that
my name is not in the list of proposers be-
cause I felt that the last sentence which
has now been divided out presented en-
tirely separate problems.
I urge, of course, this is not a repre-
sentation of counties per se, but on bal-
ance, I am inclined to think it is a better
representation of the people of Maryland,
either in large counties or in small coun-
ties, although no county will be guaranteed
per se a representative.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Just
briefly, Mr. Chairman. This morning in |
giving the members of the Committee the
workload of the House of Delegates I
pointed out that the House Ways and
Means and Judiciary Committees handled
70 per cent of the legislation.
No matter what may be suggested by the
Eagleton Report, it is quite obvious the
other committee or committees created will
only carry 30 per cent.
Using roughly 32, 33 or 34 as the maxi-
mum number of people that you can place
upon a committee for effective committee
work, it seems quite obvious that the num-
ber you would want to strike in the House
is about a hundred, in other words, it is
very close to the 105 figure.
I do believe from the point of view of
effective committee work, 144 is too high.
I say 144 again because I am convinced
that that will be what will happen under
this amendment.
There are those in this house who be-
lieve 142 is too high. Certainly 144 is just
a little bit higher yet.
I should also point out in order to ac-
complish keeping the House at 144, there
would have to be a reduction of seven
members in the Senate, the present Senate
being 43. To get the four-to-one ratio,
which would be required to preserve the
House at 144, you would have to go to 36.
As Delegate Hanson has pointed out,
this provides the most obvious form of
inter-house warfare and by its very nature
suggests a stalemate.
I do not think we ought to provide the
materials of warfare for the House and
Senate to fling at each other.
Therefore, I would oppose the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
Members of the Convention, we are prob-
ably fighting a losing cause, but my people,
our people want us to keep fighting so that
we will have some representation in the
General Assembly of Maryland.
I think the Senate of Maryland at 43 and
the House at 142 is not unwieldy. If the
President of the Maryland Senate is op-
posed, wants to cut this matter down, if he
cannot handle the job, I am sure there will |
