Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Lloyd Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Presi-
dent, fellow Delegates:
I would like to quote from a magazine,
The Reporter, the issue of September 21,
1967. There is an article on the Tennessee
Legislature, and it is entitled "Reappor-
tionment." The author states that when the
Supreme Court in 1962 handed down a
landmark decision in Baker v. Carr, the
Tennessee Legislature was called in special
session and one representative, a Mr. James
Clements, announced, "This is in the rou-
tine rule of government in Tennessee."
That was five years ago. This year, in
1967, the first reapportioned legislature
since 190I was seated. At the end of the
75-day session the same Mr. Clements said,
"This has been my finest hour."
It may have been Tennessee's finest legis-
lature. The article says, "Reapportionment,
it seems, was not the destiny for rule in
Tennessee after all."
In the State of Tennessee there is a popu-
lation of 3,500,000. They have a State legis-
lature, a House of 99 representatives, and
a Senate of 33.
In the State of Maryland you have
3,100,000 people. We have 123 members in
the House of Delegates, and 43 senators.
I am for the amendment to the amend-
ment because of these facts.
It is a known fact that in the State of
Maryland, as in the State of Tennessee,
the shift of population is toward the urban
areas. Of course, the State legislature in
both the State of Tennessee and the State
of Maryland should reflect this.
I wish you would read this article and
the report in the magazine of September
21, 1967. You will find that the real inter-
ests can retain their particular influence,
and that despite the movement of the coun-
try toward urbanization, and the need for
more consideration of urban problems, we
still have to consider the problems of rural
interests.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Price, do
you desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Price.
DELEGATE PRICE: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. |
I have heard some references to genera-
tions in back of me. It seems that these
are the times when we have more genera-
tions than we have people. We had a lost
generation, referring to those after World
War 1; and after that we had a silent gen-
eration, referring to their children; and
their children begot the beat generation,
those who try to hide in the pseudoworld
of make-believe.
There is another generation among us
that has been called by a popular manu-
facturer the Pepsi generation: "Come alive,
you're in the Pepsi generation." I do not
want to comment too much on their slogan,
but the reasons why they chose it I think
are very interesting. They knew they had
to win this generation, and I think we do,
too, as well as all the other generations.
I would like to submit to the delegates
here that what we do and the way we go
about doing it will be very influential, and
it must, first of all, be intellectually re-
spectable. It seems to me that were any of
our Committees to come onto the floor and
maintain their position simply because it
had been the result of many hours of de-
liberation, it would be a foolish kind of
consistency that would quickly become a
hobgoblin for us.
I think that the proposal, 40-120, there-
fore, is an intellectually respectable thing
to do.
The second thing I think which we must
keep in our minds is this, that everything
we do and the way we do it must also be
morally demanding. I think that in all due
respect to the theorists, whatever we may
say about the future, we must also deal
with the present, and we must to some de-
gree keep in mind these small counties of
the hinterlands. I think that 40-120 is the
most morally demanding thing that we
could do.
I think, thirdly, that what we do and the
way we do it must finally be spiritually and
socially correct. I think that to set the limit
at 40 and 120 allows for the maximum kind
of creativity in the General Assembly.
I would like to submit that there is noth-
ing more fickle than the spirit of the times,
because we do not know what tomorrow
will bring. I rise, hoping that we can de-
feat the amendment to the amendment, that
we can accept the number of 40 and 120
on the basis that it is for all the people of
Maryland the most intellectually respect-
able thing we could do. It is the most
morally demanding thing we can do, and |
