of 142 in the House and 43 in the Senate,
which certainly was not a well-reasoned
approach—it was an approach that was
reached at the end of a judicial shotgun—
we would find it necessary to bless it and
give it the sanctity of a permanent mar-
riage.
It was an unhappy courtship, to say the
least.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Caldwell.
DELEGATE CALDWELL: Mr. Chair-
man, under the one-man/one-vote doctrine,
the small counties eventually are going to
die. I believe that we should give them
representation as long as we can, and let
them die with dignity.
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Neilson.
DELEGATE NEILSON: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to oppose the amendment offered.
The figure as proposed was considered in
Committee and all of the witnesses—not
all, but most of the witnesses that appeared
before us, although agreeing that the past
Assembly was a good one, at the same time
agreed that it should be a smaller body.
This amendment does nothing more than
continue what we have without any good
reason or basis whatsoever.
I think if we are to use our initiative
and rely on the investigation of the hear-
ings of the Committee and its deliberations,
this amendment should be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I get the feeling that we are being whittled
on or whittled at by the various proposals
that are coming before us now, and I can-
not but sort of amusedly observe that with
my name up at the top of the second
column, that it is easily to be seen when
I have to vote against a good friend like
Delegate Adkins or one whom I admire as
much as I do Delegate Dorsey, and the
proposer of the motion or amendment,
Delegate Kirkland. It only prolongs the
agony. However, there was one resolution |
that I made before I came down here. That
was to vote my conscience, and to disregard
friendships that are being made and friend-
ships that will grow warmer as we go
through the various sessions of this cham-
ber.
I still feel that where we have a Com-
mittee that has battled as hard as this
Committee obviously has and under the
leadership of a Chairman as able as he is,
he is just not going to be whittled. We
have got to stand with him. I would like
somehow to get to the question of how we
can cast a vote for the 105-35 and go home.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE GRANT: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: A few minutes
ago I tried to explain to this Committee
the logical reasons why you should have
adopted Mr. Gilchrist's proposal of 144.
Since logical reasons did not succeed I now
rise to go to a matter of political expedi-
ency. I would like to have a document I
can sell my people on. I believe we have
all worked very hard. I think this is going
to be an excellent Constitution. But my
feeling is that I would much rather be
associated with a moderate success rather
than open failure.
In asking that we preserve the status
quo, which is not what we want to do, we
are asked to compromise between idealism
and reality. What it will amount to is not
a death to counties. Obviously the small
counties will be able to retain a delegate
or some kind of representation which they
can call their own until 1980. This was
brought out in Mr. Gilchrist's presentation.
After 1980, that is 14 years after we
hope we can get this Constitution passed,
since the census takers are delayed about
two years, after 1980 we do not know what
the situation will be. But at least it will
for 14 years allow this Constitution to
work.
If at the end of fourteen years there is
some desire to amend it because the House
of Delegates is unworkable in size, it can
be done.
But unless at this point you give those
of us who have to carry the load of this
Constitution in areas, where you are ask-
ing the people to disenfranchise them- |
