in establishing annual sessions, (in preference to
other terms which had been proposed,) was the
principle of responsibility; for in the language
of Jefferson, "where annual sessions ceased, ty-
ranny began." That was the ground upon which
yearly convocations of the legislature had been
originally placed, and upon which they ought to
rest now.
He denied that any evidence had been brought
to show that such annual meetings were not ne-
cessary. As regarded the fact upon which the
gentleman from Dorchester, (Mr. Phelps,) had
dwelt, that many of the States had adopted the
biennial principle, he, (Mr. S,,) thought the
gentleman would find that they were for the most
part young States to which speculators had
flown—men whose interests would best be pro-
moted by biennial sessions, or rather by no sessions
at all. He hoped that the new Constitution
would be left on the original ground.
Mr. SPENCER said, that there were some diffi-
culties surrounding this question, but which
might probably be overcome, so as to secure the
vote of the Convention upon some acceptable
proposition. He had voted at the polls against
biennial sessions. He had voted against them,
because, at the time, he considered them a viola-
tion of the fundamental principle upon which
our government rested.
So long as the people were sovereign, he con-
sidered it right and proper that the meetings of
the legislature should he annual, and any depar-
ture from that rule, would be a departure from
the recognised rights of the people.
What was the inducement for biennial ses-
sions.' Every one knew it, and it was not neces-
sary, therefore, for him to explain. The State
had been led into a system of improvident legis-
lation. He laid the responsibility of that system
at no particular door. He spoke merely of the
fact. The result was, that the people were
about to be burthened with heavy taxation. Ev-
ery possible devise was resorted to, for the pur-
pose of alleviating the burthen, and among oth-
ers, this measure of biennial sessions.
The question which presented itself to the con-
sideration of the Convention was—did that ne-
cessity exist now ? The people of the State of
Maryland had as yet given no expression of
opinion, to show that they were dissatisfied with
biennial sessions.
The Convention was framing a Constitution,
which the people might accept or reject, and if
this provision was incorporated in the Constitu-
tion, the people themselves might adopt or reject
it. There was undoubtedly, a large portion of
the people in favor of biennial sessions; and it
was a point which gentlemen must consider—
whether, by adopting the principle of annual ses-
sions, they might not drive men to vote against
the Constitution who would otherwise have vo-
ted for it. This was the difficulty which remain-
ed to be overcome. On the other hand, the Con-
vention had to determine whether it was neces-
sary to incorporate a provision binding the peo-
ple to biennial sessions.
To meet this difficulty, he intended to propose
an amendment. He would vote in favor of the |
proposition of the gentleman from Charles, (Mr.
Merrick,) provided that the amendment of
which, he, [Mr. S.,] now gave notice, should be
adopted.
[This amendment is not on Wednesday's jour-
nal. It was offered the next day, and will be
found among the proceedings. It gave the leg-
islature the right to provide by law for biennial
sessions.]
If his amendment was not adopted, Mr. S.
said, lie would experience great difficulty in de-
parting from the system of legislation, as at pre-
sent existing.
Mr. BROWN had not intended to take any part
in this debate, but he thought that the gentleman
from Dorchester had expressed himself strongly
in reference to the course of the legislature. As
he, [Mr. B.,] did not belong to the Senate, he
could not say what took place there. The gen-
tleman from Dorchester had a peculiar knack of
turning the blame from himself upon others. He
appeared to complain of the great number of acts
of incorporation that passed last year. Now, the
gentleman was on the committee on incorpora-
tions in the Senate, and I would be glad to know
whether he reported unfavorably upon one single
act of incorporation during the session, or voted
against one in the Senate? If he did, it never
came to his knowledge.
He, [Mr. B.,] was opposed to biennial sessions.
He thought that possibly, if we were free from all
embarrassments, there might be no need of annu-
al sessions, but while we have an expenditure
of $1,200,000 a year, it was right that the legis-
lature should meet annually. He became sick of
biennial sessions during the last winter, when
there were about eight hundred bills reported,
and five hundred and sixty-one passed, besides
nearly one hundred joint resolutions, he had
never known such an amount of labor performed
as was performed by the House of Delegates,
last session, in the same length of time. But
there he would stop.
By the provisions of the Constitution, any bills,
with the exception of money bills, may originate
in the Senate. But we were very little troubled
by bills originating in that body. While we were
laboring, the gentleman from Dorchester was
sitting in this hall, amusing himself by talking
and laughing with the ladies.
Near the close of the session, the House sat
from nine o'clock in the morning until late at
night, and there was a continual scramble to get
bills through. He believed that the question of
biennial sessions was passed in 1846, for the
purpose of getting rid of the reform movement.
He was in favor of frequent elections, and of a
rigid responsibility of the departments to the peo-
ple.
If the house of delegates could have had time
at the last session, there would have been a re-or-
ganization of the treasury. The present system
is too lax, and does not enforce a proper respon-
sibility. And if this had not been the most for-
tunate State in the Union, and we had not had
the most honest men in the world in the adminis-
tration of that department, there might have been
great frauds perpetrated. The bills concerning |
