is after enactment by both houses and by
approval of the Governor, or passage over
his veto. I am advised by the Chairman of
the Committee that Dr. Everstine has indi-
cated that this is a satisfactory use, al-
though this use is not that which he testi-
fied to before our Committee.
It seems to us that referring to the date
on which it becomes law is a term which
is more readily understood and will be a
less fruitful source of litigation.
There is also in this no provision for local
legislation which ought to be covered, of
course, either in this or in the local gov-
ernment article, one place or another, and
it seems to us that the language in the
draft constitution permits wider latitude
with respect to the power of referendum.
All of us believe that this very valuable
addition of the peoples' powers ought to be
maintained. Consequently, we offer this
language which we believe will be more
clear, in the views of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: A point of inquiry.
I notice that on page 2, the old language,
"appropriation for maintaining State gov-
ernment" appears. If we adopted this
amendment would it be possible to make a
change in your amendment by interlinea-
tion?
Delegate Case, would you dictate to him
what your change was? You simply struck
out the word "maintaining," didn't you?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: I understand
the effect of Delegate Case's motion. This
change of language would certainly be ac-
ceptable to me.
THE CHAIRMAN: "Appropriation for
the State government," rather than "for
maintaining State government."
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: I would ac-
cept that as an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: A point of parlia-
mentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Just how do we go about putting that
amendment on?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think on the mo-
tion of Delegate Gilchrist that the amend-
ment be changed.
If there is no objection, we could strike
out the objectionable language.
DELEGATE CASE: Very well. |
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: On behalf
of the Committee we would like a clarifica-
tion. We lodge now an objection to that
and would like a clarification.
THE CHAIRMAN: The language was
stricken out. It was language "for main-
taining state government," "for aiding or
maintaining," appearing on lines 16 and
17, or 17 and 18, rather, of Committee
Recommendation S&E-1. In lieu thereof this
language was inserted: "appropriations for
the State government," so that you avoid
the question by adopting that language of
trying to draw a distinction between some-
thing which indicates a current expenditure
and an appropriation for the state govern-
ment.
I think by simply striking from the
amendment on page 2—if you will look at
line 5, the word "maintaining," you would
have the proper language.
Does that properly describe the amend-
ment, Delegate Case?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, I
think the language is identical, is it not,
Delegate Gilchrist, and therefore, to inform
you what the Committee of the Whole has
already done in line 5, strike the words
"maintaining the State government, or for
aiding or maintaining," and insert in lieu
thereof the words "the state government."
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the Delegate
understand that?
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Yes.
I have another question, though; this is
in the form of a parliamentary inquiry. I
wonder, is this then an amendment to an
amendment? Does this preclude any amend-
ments upon that amendment to the amend-
ment?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would think it
would not preclude an amendment of an
amendment. This is made by general agree-
ment.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: I wonder
if Delegate Gilchrist would yield to a ques-
tion, if this is proper at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the Delegate
yield?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Yes.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Delegate
Gilchrist, is it not true that your amend-
ment is in fact the Constitutional Com-
mission draft of the referendum provision?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: That is cor-
rect. |
