The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1918-05-03
BY CHARLES W. CLAGETT.


dry it apparently has been the practise
of many automobilist from that City
to visit Baltimore to escape the Sahara
like condition of Washington. Many
of them, not content with absorbing
all the LIQUID refreshments their sys-
TENS could hold, would purchase intox-
icating liquors by the bottle for use on
the way home, with the result, in many
cases, of fatal automobile collisions.
Under this act, the thirsty Washing
tonions must visit Baltimore prior to .
O'Clock P. NJ in order to obtain bottled
liquors. This act should materially re-
duce the number of accidents on the
State Roads.
The people of Prince Georges are
probably more interested in the attempt
ed race track legislation than in any
other question which came before the
legislature. The Race Track Commiss-
ion bill was the only bill introduced in
the house which embarrassed Mr.. Clagett
and he wishes to explain his position
upon this bill. As was generally known
he is personally opposed to gamblin &
and in the early part of the campaign
he endeavored to ascertain the senti
ments of the people upon this question.
In travelling over the county he asked
the views of numerous citizens in every
district and was then convinced that
the great majority of the voters were
in favor of the Bowie Race Track. No
person representing the Bowie Race
Track interviewed him as to his attitude
on their proposed bill but he received
intimations from numerous sources that
if he intended to oppose the proposed
bill it would result in his defeat. Be-
ing convinced that the great majority
of the voters were in the favor of legis-
lation for the Bowie track and realizing
that if the people interested in this
tract should oppose him he would
necessarily be defeated, in speech at
Brandywine he said that if any race
track gambling was permitted in Mary
land he would support the proposed
local bill, thus leaving himself free to
support general race track anti-gamb-
ing legislation. He did insist, that the
Bowie race track, if licensed, should
pay reasonable proportion of its earn
ing for the support of the roads of
Prince Georges. 1t did seem to him
that it would hardly be just to legislate
the Bowie race track out of existence
and permit the Laurel, Pimlico and
Havre de Grace race tracks to run, and
for that reason among others, he felt
that the statement he made at Brandy
wine in which he reserved to hims elf
the right to, support the State wide
anti-gambling race track bill, was all
that his conscience and justice required.
Shortly after his Brandywine speech
he was told by one of the representa-
tives of the Bowie race track that that
track would not want to operate if other
tracks were prohibited from gamblin g
upon their premises and that his posi-
ton was perfectly satisfactory to them.
He wants it distinctly understood thai
no person connected with the Bowie
track ever told him that if he did not
support their bill that thev would op-
pose him. 1t was, however, fair in
ference that any person openly op-
posing the interests of this organiza-
support. The vote showed that the
did not oppose Mr.. Clagett in the cleo
ton and he felt morally bound to vote
for the racing commission bill and was
very careful to do nothing which would
place him in the position of supporting
the bill by his vote while secretly op-
posing it.
Before this bill passed the house, Mr.
Merrick, upon the request of Mr..
Peach, introduced a bill which was
generally understood by the entire dele
cation to repeal one of the laws under
which race track gambling is permitted
in Prince Georges. He explained the
purpose of the bill to Mr.. Clagett and
showed him Mr.. Peach's letter. Mr..
Clagett Immediately suggested to Mr..
Merrick to submit the bill to Mr.. Fisher
and, if he and Mr.. Davis approved it,
he agreed that it should be favorably
reported. Mr.. Merrick gave the bill
to Mr.. Fisher who kept it several days
and returned it with the statement
that it was all right and that Mr. Ma
gruder had no objection to it. Mr..
Clagett's recollection is that the bill
was before the Judiciary Committee,
of which he was member, and, upon
receiving the assurance of Mr.. Fisher
that there was no objection to the bill,
it was favorably reported. His under
standing and the understanding of the
entire delegation was that the bill did
not in any way affect the racing COM
mission bill.
Mr.. Davis and Mr.. Fisher were
actively in charge of the race track
legislation and both Mr.. Merrick and
Mr.. Clagett felt that anything approx
ed by these gentlemen and Mr.. Ma
gruder could not affect the commission
bill.
Mr.. Clagett's duties as member of
the Judiciary Committee were very
exacting as probably two thirds of the
bills introduced were referred to this
extent of Mr.. Merrick who was a men,
Der of the important committee on
corporations. Considering the great
volume of work required of them they
feel that all reasonable persons will
conclude that they were justified in
relying upon the assurances of Mr..
Fisher that the bill was all right.
Owning TO the fact that one of these
bills nullifed the other the Governor
has announced that he will veto both
bills.
For some reason unknown to the
writer, this bill was not reported to the
house until late in the session although
the majority of the members of the
were in favor of it and it
could have been reported at any time.
The time was taken up with hearings
and counter hearings in the house
chambers.
Reasonable hearings should be given
upon all important bills but any one
familiar with legislation at Annapolis
must known that one of the most sue
cessful methods of defeating legislation
is to have numerous hearings and post
pone the bill until late in the session,
when in the rush of business and con-
fiicting interests it will probably be
lost. When the bill was finally report
ed, Mr.. Clagett actively supported it
and it received, according to his best
66 recorded votes upon it's
second reading. Owing to the crowded
condition of the calendar it was not
taken up again TOR about ten days.
When the final vote was taken, MANY
members who had voted for it on its
second reading voted against.it and
number of others left the house just
before or while vote was being taken.