pension of legislation: we just passed, ap-
proximately two hour ago, a provision
which would allow the General Assembly
to pass special legislation, which would not
be suspendable. If the legislature, if our
elected officials, members of the General
Assembly, so feel that a proposal or a bill
is of such major importance that it should
not be suspended, then they can do so by
calling it non-suspendable, or by calling it
special legislation and passing it by 3/5 vote,
and if they do not do so, then we must only
feel that they do not feel that it needs to
be suspended or that it can be suspended.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish
to speak against on uncontrolled time?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I
rise in opposition to the amendment, and
in so doing, apologize to my good friend,
Delegate Scanlan and to Mr. Justice
Holmes. I suggest that on this issue a page
of history is worth a volume of logic.
It has been said here that the referendum
has never been the subject of abuse, either
before 1962 or after. Reluctantly, I must
inform my colleagues who have made this
statement that this is just not true.
In 1959 and 1960, there came into this
State one of the most vicious groups of
profilers that we had ever seen. They
mounted a scandal which rocked this State
and rocked the nation. They were the sav-
ings and loan crew.
To meet the situation as it then obtained,
Governor Tawes appointed a commission
to study long and hard and bring in a regu-
latory bill. The bill was presented to the
General Assembly of Maryland, and after
a great deal of debate, and compromise, a
meaningful regulatory act was passed. Im-
mediately a group of people financed by
the savings and loan crowd, mounted a
campaign in Baltimore City and elsewhere
to bring in a petition for referendum. They
were well financed, they were unscrupulous
in their methods, and they mounted a
sufficient number of petitions to suspend the
law. As a matter of fact, they brought the
petitions to Annapolis in an armored car
and had television people and radio people
here to greet them when they came.
Now, this was a dire situation in this
State, and what it required was drastic
action. Governor Tawes was equal to this
occasion, and he called a special session of
the General Assembly for the sole and
avowed purpose of passing a new regula- |
tory act, which would not be subject to
referendum. Such an act was prepared,
and was not nearly as good as the first
act, but it was adequate.
The result of this was clear: the oppo-
nents, the petitioners, wanted one more
year to loot the people of this State. This
they did not get, and when the final vote
was taken, as you will see on your memo-
randum, the bill won by 5 to I, but they
would have had another year if Governor
Tawes had not called the special session.
I say to you that the five per cent is a
meaningful compromise between those who
would like to foreclose referendum and those
who feel that it is, as it has been, subject
to abuse.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish
to speak in favor. Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, in answer to Delegate Case's argu-
ment, would it not be fair for us to assume
that any group as unscrupulous and as
well financed as the group in that par-
ticular instance could very well raise three
per cent, five per cent, or even ten per cent
of the signatures if they had the capability
that we think that they had. I strongly
suggest to you that a bad case makes for
bad law, and if we were to base the figure
in the future constitution on one bad in-
stance, or even two bad instances, I think
we would be doing a disservice.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to
speak in favor?
(There was no response.)
DELEGATE PULLEN: I would just
like to remark that I think Dick has made
his case.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I have
been informed that the word "case" did
not fit in very well in my comments, and
I apologize for that remark. Let me see if
I can rephrase that.
THE CHAIRMAN: We understand.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: A bad
set of pleadings makes for a bad law. How
is that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, is there any-
one opposed to the amendment? Delegate
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I have prepared an amendment to
the amendment, which I am not going to
submit at this time.
(Applause.) |
