the House within reasonable bounds for all
the reasons we have been stating over the
past two days.
I am not from one of the smaller coun-
ties, but if I were, I would find this amend-
ment to the amendment much more to my
liking than the 120, even if you had the
fractional vote connected with that.
There is a degree of boldness to this
step.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one min-
ute, Delegate dark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: I think the
situation that we find ourselves in calls for
some boldness.
I would hope that this decision will be
made by the people from the small counties
who have a good case, and I hope that they
will cast their lot with this proposition,
because it is my sincere belief that in the
long run they will profit by it, and the
people of this State will profit by it, also.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment to the amendment?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment to the
amendment.
I think the Chair has established that
what we are doing here in effect is recon-
sidering the vote which we took on Amend-
ment No. 8.
What I understand is before us is
whether or not there shall be 120 members
of the House or 105, and whether there
shall be 40 members of the Senate, or 35.
A few minutes ago we voted on this very
question.
The vote was 94 to 36 in favor of 120
and 40.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have
had enough debate on this question. The
question is single before us now, and I urge
we vote the amendment to the amendment
down so that we can get on with the con-
sideration of fractional voting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment
to the amendment?
DELEGATE ADKINS: I should like to
raise a parliamentary inquiry.
Am I correct in assuming that if Dele-
gate Clark's amendment to the amendment |
passes, and Delegate Sherbow's amendment
as amended fails, the earlier vote establish-
ing the House as we have just done, at the
120 figure, would still be in full force and
effect?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct; re-
gardless of the action on the amendment to
the amendment, if Amendment No. 9 fails,
whether in its original form or as amended,
that leaves the action of the Committee of
the Whole as it was before the amendment
was offered.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I reluctantly
rise to support Senator Clark's amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second.
Is there any other delegate who desires
to speak — I am sorry, you are quite right.
I thought it was open session.
Delegate Scanlan is speaking in favor.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The Commit-
tee on the Legislative Branch tried to
achieve a number of goals, some of them
almost mutually exclusive.
We tried to adhere to the one-man, one-
vote principle, a substantial population
principle.
We tried to provide for a small, effective,
efficient General Assembly.
We tried to the maximum extent possible
to see that where it could be done that all
areas would be represented, certainly at
least in one house. We also, of course, had
in the back of our minds the fact that
there were limits beyond which we could
not go without risking repudiation by the
voters in May.
Where we broke down was the clash be-
tween the substantial equal principle and
the desire to give each county as much
representation as it was entitled to.
Later in the game, one of the suggestions
made after we completed our report, was
the one you now have before you, originally
sired by Senator dark and rather hastily
adopted by Judge Sherbow.
Personally, I think it is messier than a
seabag of a Chinese sailor and I think it is
an invitation to litigation, for one thing.
What about it, say Montgomery County,
that might be entitled to 11/12ths but is
not given a half; in other words, the classi- |
