selves, something to work with, and give
us a chance to prove this Constitution is
good, you are giving us an almost impos-
sible burden to try to sell to our people.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman,
as I understand it, the proponents of this
amendment would say that it would permit
some time for the small counties to phase
out their General Assembly representation.
I suggest that in 1970 there will be a re-
apportionment. I think under this constitu-
tion and what we are talking about, then,
is two years' time. It seems to me a high
price to pay that we forever enshrine 143,
and I suggest the legislature would do just
that for the sake of two years. The price
is much too high, and 1 oppose it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do any further dele-
gates desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Committee:
Delegate Scanlan stated that the New
York State Constitutional Convention ap-
parently did not know the reason it went
down to defeat. I think we will find one
reason the Maryland Constitution may go
down to defeat may be this particular
issue. I urge you to support this amend-
ment..
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Ulrich.
DELEGATE ULRICH: Mr. Chairman,
we in the Local Government Committee
have worked diligently and long hours to
give power to the counties, realizing that
a situation such as this would arise after
the 1970 census. I urge members of this
Committee of the Whole to defeat this
amendment. It will not solve the problem
of the counties. We have solved it in the
Local Government Committee.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? |
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Convention:
The matter of local government may be
controversial, too, before it is all over, so
if we are going to follow controversy after
controversy, I would wonder who in the
state will be for this Constitution.
I did say before and I say again, we
would be making a mistake at this time to
cut down by this Constitution the number
of men in the legislature.
There is another practical aspect some of
you have not thought about. Right after
we leave here, 142 men are coming back
into this legislature in this very hall, and
43 across the way, and all of them are
powerful influences throughout the State.
When you say that by this Constitution to
be adopted in May that you 142 members
of the legislature have got to go out and
sell this Constitution to these people, and
they know that 62 of their number are going
out and they know not who is going, I will
venture to say that you will not get 50
percent of them to go out for this Consti-
tution.
The same way with the senators across
the hall. Both bodies will be in a hopeless
state of confusion, not knowing what the
future holds for the state legislature.
So I say you are playing with dynamite
to cut it down. If you want to defeat the
Constitution, this is one of the ways to do
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
delegate who desires to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment?
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I think it might be useful in this debate to
inject a historical note about the science
by which the numbers 43 and 142 were
determined.
In 1962 when the Circuit Court in Anne
Arundel County declared unconstitutional
the then composition of the House of Dele-
gates, the Governor called for a special ses-
sion of the General Assembly, at which
time two bills were prepared for introduc-
tion.
The objective of these was ultimately to
keep the size of the General Assembly at
123, which most of the participants agreed
was far better than an expanded size. The
first bill or, correction, the second bill |
