DELEGATE KOSS: The only one that
I could consider, and I would defer to some
of the experts on State Finance on this,
would be appropriations for private insti-
tutions.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
answer, or appropriations to a private citi-
zen to pay damage for instance.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: That
would not be subject to referendum?
DELEGATE KOSS: That would be.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Would be?
DELEGATE KOSS: Would be.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Was that
the intention of the Committee?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gullett.
DELEGATE GULLETT: Chairman
Koss, in Section 4, concerning the verifica-
tion of signatures of petitioners, that sig-
natures be genuine and they own knowl-
edge of the person securing the signatures;
could you explain in a little more detail ex-
actly what that means?
In other words, if the person securing
the signature asks the person if he is a
registered voter, is that sufficient?
DELEGATE KOSS: No.
DELEGATE GULLETT: To what ex-
tent would he have to go to be sure of his
own knowledge?
DELEGATE KOSS: Well, he could go
to various extents, depending upon the seri-
ousness with which he took the affidavit,
and one would be to check the registration,
because first of all, it is required not only
that they be registered voters, but that
they sign in the manner in which they are
registered and that their precinct—
DELEGATE GULLETT: District, pre-
cinct?
DELEGATE KOSS: No. It requires an
affidavit that of his knowledge these signa-
tures are bona fide, and the responsibility
is on him to sign the affidavit to that ef-
fect.
DELEGATE GULLETT: Is that the
case in this law?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
DELEGATE GULLETT: You are not
aware of any law that is contrary to that
in the State of Maryland? |
DELEGATE KOSS: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DE LEGATE BENNETT: Referring
Delegate Koss again to section 2 in this
provision making certain exemptions from
the referendum, what did you have in mind
when you said that a referendum would
not pertain to a law dealing with mainte-
nance of a public institution? I assume you
mean the maintenance of a school or uni-
versity?
DELEGATE KOSS: Public hospitals, as
well.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Even if that
appropriation was only a small part of the
total cost of maintaining that institution?
Let me phrase it around another way: it
would be possible, I take it, to petition to
referendum an appropriation aiding a pri-
vate institution?
DELEGATE KOSS: Let me say, Dele-
gate Bennett, that these provisions cer-
tainly in terms of appropriations are the
same ones that exist in the present Con-
stitution. We have not changed anything
as far as appropriations are concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, I do
not think that is quite correct. There is a
provision in the present Constitution per-
mitting a referendum on an increase in an
appropriation.
DELEGATE KOSS: I am sorry. I mis-
spoke myself, but with respect to the ap-
propriation question, we have not changed
the coverage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Your inten-
tion is not to permit that?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Take, for in-
stance, the Horace Mann case, where an
appropriation was made to aid certain col-
leges involving some religious problems.
Now, could that appropriation have been
petitioned to referendum?
DELEGATE KOSS: In terms of the
purposes that are proscribed here, yes.
Now, I think there are other technical
questions on that which I would not be
interested in speaking to, but any ap-
propriation for a private college would be
susceptible to referendum, in the terms of
this provision. |
