he feels the winds have changed and they
may well have. We may well make a signifi-
cant change this morning, but I rise to sup-
port 36 and 108. It is a good way from the
80 and 120 that we had a ten to ten tie on
in the Committee. I am not trying to sug-
gest that we possess all wisdom, and that
35 and 105 are exactly right. Certainly to
go to 36 and 108 is not much of a conces-
sion and we may lose with it, and if we
do, we will lose gracefully. And, too, I
want to say that perhaps yesterday, in the
heat of debate, I was a little sharper than
I should have been. After a good night's
sleep, I feel a lot more congenial towards
the world this morning, as I hope you do.
I also know that I caught last night in
the voting a feeling of, frustration on the
part of the members: "Let's vote for some-
thing and get it over with." This is per-
fectly human and understandable. At the
same time, those old pros who are in this
Convention, who fought many a battle in
the legislature, know this device quite well
and have the stamina and determination to
fight that kind of a battle, I would hope
that our physical discomfort might not pre-
vail over our intellectual conviction, be-
cause if it does, we are going to have a
constitution which may accommodate our
personal, bodily predispositions, but I
doubt would do much for the State of
Maryland over the long run.
We have laid out a map in which we are
able to show you that with the 35 and 105,
no more than two counties would be com-
bined together in a single senatorial dis-
trict. With 36 and 108, this naturally can
be accomplished the same way, so that the
question for the long haul is not as sig-
nificant as you might think. We are not
lumping together areas which require going
300 miles from one end to the other. What
I think we are doing here this morning is
holding out a false hope.
We are not going to give the small coun-
ties that are going to have 17,000, 22,000,
25,000 persons, so much more of a chance
under 120-40 than we are under 108-36,
and it is almost unfair to suggest we are
because it is a kind of false novocame, so
to speak. You want to cushion the shock,
but to me there is an element of deceit in it.
The Supreme Court has spoken. We know
what our responsibilities are. I indicated
to you yesterday that I really thought the
House ought to have three committees of
about 30 members, or 31 members. That
would really be 93 or 94. All right; 105 is
12 or 13 more than we need, 108, maybe |
15 to 18 more than we need, but when we
get into 120, we are getting to a House
that I served in from 1959 to 1962. I re-
member it well.
I was fortunate enough to be on the Ju-
diciary Committee, but I know that those
fellow colleagues of mine who were not on
the Judiciary or the Ways and Means did
spend a great deal of time wandering these
halls, trying to figure out how they could
put themselves usefully to work. I can
tell you it was always a bitter day when
the committee announcements came out
and a member of the House did not find
himself on Ways and Means or Judiciary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
you have a little less than a minute.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I agree
with Delegate Clarke you do not fritter
your time away, but you have 5, 6, 7 other
committees that are there.
The committees split the 30 per cent
workload between them and you really do
not feel you are making the kind of con-
tribution you should.
I am not going to try to rise to any
great oratorical heights this morning. I am
for the representation of the small coun-
ties, but those people are going to be as
ably represented and as well represented
as the urban areas.
It is a great mistake to pit this conven-
tion into a conflict between urban and rural
areas. I say to you that if we lose here
this morning, we are going to lose grace-
fully, and I tell the other committee chair-
men to fight for your report, regardless of
what you do in this particular situation.
We do feel, however, that we have a very
practical situation and we ought to have a
practical answer. And I please ask you to
consider again that all you are doing, it
seems to me, is holding out a whimsical,
fanciful hope, and a hope that really has
no foundation to it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has ex-
pired.
Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Will the gentle-
man yield?
THE CHAIRMAN: His time has ex-
pired, Delegate Malkus. He may take the
floor at a later time.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I will
yield on Delegate Malkus' time, if I may. |
