clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1937   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Dec. 7] DEBATES 1937

side of the bay in the wintertime, and to
say that they could not vote would dras-
tically affect Ocean City.

In the town of Snow Hill we would like,
and I know are contemplating, extending
the right to vote to people who live around
Snow Hill, because as time has gone on, a
lot of businessmen and people who own the
property and conduct the business have
moved a little further out, but they still
maintain their interest and property in
Snow Hill and they want the right to vote
there.

The significant thing is that not one
single person from one municipality that
extends the right to a non-resident property
owner appeared and asked that this be
done away with. They are not offended.
They want it.

I do not see why this Constitutional Con-
vention should interfere with extending the
right to vote to their citizens who perhaps
have lived in town and now moved a little
way outside.

I urge that you defeat the amendment
and support the committee recommendation.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.

DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, in
response to the request for the accurate
figures in the last election in Ocean City,
the check shows that 800 non-residents
voted, 50 corporations and 50 local resi-
dents.

Further information: the county elec-
tions under the provisions of the current
Constitution indicated that county elections
will be held at a different time. Mr. Chair-
man, how much time do we have left for
the minority?

THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have
about six minutes.

DELEGATE FOX: Will Delegate White
yield to a question?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.

DELEGATE FOX: Was the election
that you referred to, the recent election
with regard to annexing land outside of
Ocean City to the town of Ocean City, a
matter in which the non-residents who lived
outside Ocean City had the greatest in-
terest?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.

DELEGATE WHITE: According to my
information, it was the local municipal
election, and not annexation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield four minutes to
Delegate John Carroll Byrnes.

THE CHAIRMAN: This will leave you
only one minute after that, Delegate White.

DELEGATE WHITE: I yield under
those conditions two minutes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.

DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I want to point out just for the record, if
this has not been suggested before, that
our Committee did receive correspondence
from a great number of municipalities, and
I want to read for the record those which
absolutely oppose the extension.

These are the mayors of the following:
Rockville, Takoma Park, Bowie, Somerset,
Forest Hill, Hyattsville, Aberdeen, Bla-
densburg, Federalsburg, and Easton.

Now, I was one of those who was on
the ball on this question. I saw Ocean City
and saw that a great number of the prop-
erty owners of Ocean City did not live
there, and I wondered how the cities would
survive if the people who owned the prop-
erty did not participate in the government.

I resolved it this way, by recognizing
that this is contrary to the principle of the
philosophy of this country and then I
looked at it practically and said, those who
have an interest in the municipalities cer-
tainly have a great number of other ways
that they can influence the elections and
influence the outcome of the elections in
those areas.

I think it was made clear to us by tes-
timony and frankly, by common sense, that
the people in Ocean City who actually live
there have precisely the same interest as
those people who own the property.

It is incredible to believe that the people
of Ocean City would act contrary in any
way whatsoever to the interests of the
people who own the property there, so it
was my personal conclusion, and I think
many on the Committee agreed with me,
that not only does this not appeal to us
philosophically but also practically speak-
ing, we felt we were not denying anybody
the right to participate in the government
of the municipality and certainly did not
think that Ocean City's government or
economy would suffer as a result of deny-
ing this particular right.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1937   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives