experience in New York and the fact that
the Constitution was defeated there by the
voters yesterday.
Fortunately New York is not Maryland
and Maryland is not New York. I would
not attempt to analyze on the information
I have why the New York Constitution
failed. We all know there was a bitter re-
ligious issue which, thank God, I hope will
not permeate this Convention.
Beyond that, the New York Constitution
failed because it gave the voters a replica
of the past. It disillusioned the voters of
New York. It made no reform in the ju-
diciary. It made no substantial reform in
the division of powers, taxing powers, be-
tween the local government and the state
government. It made all the possible mis-
takes that could be made.
Unlike Maryland, they were elected
there as Democrats and Republicans and
were partisan from the day they formed.
They transformed themselves into a junior
edition of the New York General Assembly.
This Constitutional Convention has not
made those basic mistakes. We were elected
on a non-partisan basis, we came here as
delegates, obedient only to our own con-
science as to what is good for the State of
Maryland.
New York made one other great mistake.
In giving the voters just a warmed-over
version of what they already have, the
delegates of the New York Convention
failed in the matter of courage and wis-
dom. They were rightly repudiated by the
voters of New York.
I urge my fellow delegates, let us not
make that one mistake New York made.
Let us in this important respect again be
different from New York, just as we came
here as non-partisans, just as we came
here in a spirit to try to fashion the best
possible Constitution, even though we might
not agree with all parts of it. Let us once
again show New York we have in Maryland
what they did not have in their Convention,
courage to do the right thing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Hutchinson.
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: Mr.
Chairman, this body today is comprised of
142 men—and women; 1 apologize. Mr.
Gallagher has spoken on many occasions
about the efficiency of his Committee. His
Committee has 20 members. I would like |
to suggest to Mr. Gallagher that if we
would cut the membership of this body,
that we would necessarily have to cut the
membership of his Committee. I would like
to ask Mr. Gallagher, who he would cut if
he had to cut individuals.
(Laughter)
I would not like to think that we have
placed ourselves on such a high pedestal
and we are much superior intellectually to
the members of the House of Delegates; to
think this body can do an efficient job with
142 members but that our legislative offi-
cials can not do a job with 142 members.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
like to make this brief response. You cannot
compare a Constitutional Convention to a
General Assembly. The General Assembly
finds it most helpful to divide itself into
committee work, into three segments. You
take the total membership and divide by
three.
In this Constitutional Convention we
have eight substantive areas, and I think
if you look at that, it is only natural that
we have smaller committees.
I would not cut anybody from my Com-
mittee, because I think we have actually
had a Committee that represents all points
of view; some prevail, some don't. In any
event, we have had a full expression of
opportunity to speak. We have heard from
a great many people. Our size is 20. We
are as large as any of the committees of
the Constitutional Convention. But the
House committees run about 30, and when
you get beyond that point, you have
trouble.
What I am suggesting is that a realistic
committee arrangement in the house really
calls for three committees, and the minute
you get beyond 30 in any significant degree,
you have an unwieldy committee. There-
fore, I would submit that the analogy be-
tween the House and the Senate consider-
ing it as the General Assembly and this
Constitutional Convention really is not a
good one, and like so many, it limps quite
badly.
As I said when 1 opposed this amend-
ment in the beginning, it would be most
unfortunate if through the happenstance
of history and reapportionment, and the
Court decree which brought us to a figure |
