time is available, there will be a greater
tendency not to reconcile opposing views,
but for extremists in each camp to hold
their ground, hoping to wear down the
other person.
The Committee's recommendation of 150
days should be adequate for the present
and for the reasonable and foreseeable fu-
ture for the legislative needs of Maryland.
The people of Maryland at least for a year,
are entitled to a respite from the changes
resulting from new legislation. I urge that
this amendment be defeated, unless you are
prepared to raise your legislators' salary
in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $25,000.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard?
DELEGATE BARD: I would like to give
the next three minutes, Mr. Chairman, to
Delegate Mitchell.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent, I find most persuasive the testimony
before the Legislative Committee of two
distinguished former members of the state
legislature whom the voters of Maryland,
in their wisdom, have elected to the United
States Senate to represent Maryland, Sena-
tors Daniel B. Brewster and Joseph Tyd-
ings.
Senator Brewster's testimony before the
Legislative Branch was emphatic. Said he,
"the new constitution that the Convention
is writing should be a broad document of
general principles, not specific details. The
existence of strict constitutional restric-
tions on legislative operations binders the
effectiveness of this body."
He supported this Minority Report.
Senator Tydings spent half of his fifteen
page address on the need for a flexible ses-
sion of the legislature. He said, "first, I do
not believe that a limitation on the length
of the legislative session has any place in a
modern State Constitution."
He further said, "the constitutional re-
strictions on the length of the legislative
session is premised upon the fallacious as-
sumption that a state legislature can
competently deal with an increasingly com-
plex budget and growing state problems if
it works less than one-fourth of the year;
legislating for Maryland's welfare can no
longer be such a part-time job."
He went on to say, "an unrestricted legis-
lative session would give the members of
the legislature, not the clock, control of the
session. It would provide a heretofore un- |
known flexibility to the legislature. It
would allow the legislature itself to meet
either for a condensed consecutive period
as now or several days a week throughout
the year, but it would allow the legislature
to determine its working conditions rather
than having them frozen in the constitu-
tion."
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-quarter
of a minute.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: We also had
a Republican member of the Congress of
the United States from Frederick County,
Congressman Charles McManus, who testi-
fied before the Legislative Branch, and also
supported a flexible session of the legis-
lature. He requested that this constitution
remain silent on this matter and leave it to
the legislature to set its own working pro-
cedures.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I yield
three minutes to Delegate Malkus.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
members of this Convention, according to
the records, there were 37 people that testi-
fied on this subject matter. Of the 37—and
they included for the most part all the
people that have a practical knowledge of
what the General Assemby does—of the 37
that testified 3I urged that a limit be estab-
lished in the Constitution.
It is true, of course, that there was dis-
agreement on the limit of days. It is also
true, as the lady from Baltimore City has
said, that Senators Tydings and Brewster
testified for continuous sessions, but they
were in the minority, and I served with
both of them in this honorable body.
I would like to bring to your attention,
as I have said before, that when you have
labor, headed by one of the better labor
leaders, Charlie Della, who gets a good
job done here in the General Assembly, and
you find management on the other side
headed by Cab Darrell, Jim Boyle, and
others, people that make their living in the
field of private enterprise, and when you
have a preponderance of evidence from 3I
out of 37 people who really know what we
do down here, Mr. President, and we go
ahead and ignore what these expert wit-
nesses testify, then I say again, there is
no need to have hearings. Let us make our
own opinions and not be bothered about
their experience.
For that reason, Mr. President, now let |
