THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: It is our un-
derstanding that it is as clear as a bell
that the General Assembly when it would
act would provide by law that this would
require a constitutional majority of both
houses first to pass the law, which would
have to be signed, of course, by the gov-
ernor. When it says appointed by the Gen-
eral Assembly, this would require a major-
ity of each House of the General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? The question arises on the mo-
tion to substitute for Committee Recom-
mendation SF-I the provision "the General
Assembly shall provide by law for post-
audit of state finances by an agency of the
General Assembly directed by a person ap-
pointed by it and under its control".
In order to avoid any misunderstanding,
the Parliamentarian suggests that 1 call to
your attention that if anyone desires to
offer amendments to the substitute, now is
the appropriate time to offer such amend-
ments and not after the substitute shall
have been voted upon. Is there any further
discussion of the motion to substitute or
any amendments to be offered to the
substitute?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
substitution; a vote No, a vote against the
substitution. All in favor, signify by saying
Aye; contrary, No. The Ayes have it. It is
so ordered.
The question now arises on Committee
Recommendation SF-I as amended by the
substitution. Is there any further discus-
sion? Are you ready for the question? A
vote Aye is a vote in favor of Committee
Recommendation SF-I as amended by the
substitution by Amendment No. 1. All in
favor, signify by saying Aye; contrary, No.
The Ayes seem to have it. The Ayes have it.
The motion is carried. The Committee Rec-
ommendation SF-I is approved and will be
so reported to the Convention.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on what I suppose would be a
matter of personal privilege. I would like
the record of this Committee and of this
Convention to show that Delegate Koger
had introduced the earliest proposal relat-
ing to post-audit. He has worked on it day
in and day out. We have not had a session |
but that he has produced some item of in-
terest relating to this subject matter and on
behalf of our Committee and myself 1 want
publicly to express to him our appreciation
for the service he has rendered in connec-
tion with this particular matter.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next item on the
Agenda of the Committee of the Whole is
Committee Report SF-I. The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Sherbow, Chairman of the
Committee on State Finance and Taxation
and requests he come forward to the read-
ing desk.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee, this is a report where all we ask is
that it be received, accepted and so placed
in the archives that the fact that something
is being omitted will be available to those
who may be seeking knowledge of why it
was omitted and would clarify any open
question that might hereafter arise with
respect to this subject matter.
This requires that we go into a little bit
of history. We have in the present Con-
stitution a requirement that nothing shall
exempt the salaries or compensation of any
judge or other public officer from the im-
position by the General Assembly of a non-
discriminatory tax upon income.
That got into the Constitution in this
fashion. Maryland adopted a state income
tax. When this state income tax was
adopted, it was provided therein that all
persons within the classes subject to the
exemption and exceptions would all be liable
for the payment. You know that when April
15 comes around.
However, we had another provision in
our Constitution which said that you can-
not diminish the salary of any judge during
his term of office. So the question arose,
are you diminishing the salary of a judge
by requiring him to pay a state income
tax?
The rule had been that you really were
deducting something from a judge's salary
which was obvious. The Supreme Court in
the case of Evans v. Gore, which is cited
on the Committee Report, held that you
were literally reducing it in violation of
the law.
At or about that time the Chief Judge
of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, the
late Honorable Samuel K. Dennis, whom
most of us or all of us really remember
with deep affection and regard, wanted to |
