of the session, and upon one motion, refer a
shoulder turn over, for the consideration of the
next General Assembly. This, sir, is common
in all Legislative bodies, and need not now, for
the first time, be brought in judgment against
biennial sessions.
lie was astonished to find himself standing
alone in the advocacy of this proposition. Not
a single friend had come forward to say one word
to sustain him.
Mr. GWINN said that he was opposed to the
system of biennial sessions. They were attend-
ed by a real inconvenience, which was separable
from the argument founded on the right to fre-
quent assemblies. The course of practice in this
State, and our whole system of legislation brought
annually before the House and Senate, a large
mass of private business, which necessarily came
in conflict with the public business of the body.
All who had occupied a seat on the floor of the
House of Delegates, know how impossible it is to
escape the requirements of private and local legis-
lation. Prohibitions in the Constitution might re-
strain the General Assembly from considering a
large portion of such business. But it cannot
close the ear of the Legislature, to the various
demands which will, at all times, be made upon
its attention. It had been said that much of this
petty business would be transferred to the levy
courts and county commissioners. There was
good and evil both, in such a scheme, but the
latter predominated. However, it would de-
pend upon the class of powers transferred. It
is not, in general, wise to place private rights at
the disposal of a local tribunal. The risk of pre-
judice is increased, for the examiners are more
likely to be partail.
The biennial system does not answer. He
could speak for the last legislature, and especial-
ly for the delegation from Baltimore, of which he
was one. All had been industrious and faithful
to their duty, but they could not accomplish the
necessary business of the city. More than one
hundred city bills remained upon the Speaker's
table, when the House of Delegates adjourned.
Many were private, but some also were well con-
sidered, important bills, submitted to the notice
of the Legislature, by able and accomplished
jurists—but he could not, in any way, get them
fairly before the House.
Perhaps every Legislature did waste time. But
does it waste less every two years, than every
year? If the accumulation of business always
exists at the close of the sessions, whether they
be annual, or not—does it follow that there
ought to be a double accumulation ? He could
not see the force of such reasoning.
Mr. MERRICK rose to express his entire acqui-
escence in the amendment proposed by the gen-
tleman from Queen Anne's, to come in a proper
place. Should the annual sessions be found, on
trial, not to work well, it would give the people
an opportunity to return to the biennial system.
But he was desirous to see the amendment insert-
ed in its proper place.
Mr. SPENCER, (in his seat.) " At the end of
the section."
He, (Mr. M„) did not think that the same |
accountability of executive officers could be en-
forced under the biennial system as the annual.
The gentleman from Dorchester predicts that the
people will not accept of this Constitution if the
system be changed from biennial to annual ses-
sions. Now, he hoped, that the Convention would
be able to make such a Constitution as the people
will approve. And he felt that the only way in
which he could act so as to facilitate such a re-
sult, was to proceed according to the best of his
judgment and under a conscientious sense of du-
ty, in his endeavors to provide for the people a
good government, and one which will win for it-
self the approbation of the wise and the good
The gentleman from Carroll, (Mr. Brown,)
had argued that the large amount of money which
was annually expended on account of the public
debt, was a reason in favor of annual sessions.
That was true; but this debt, he trusted, would
be liquidated in the course of a very few years ;
but still we must expect that very large sums
will continue to pass through the hands of the
treasurer annually, should our great works of in-
ternal improvement realize what is expected from
them, and these large sums must be again dis-
bursed, all of which will require the annual su-
pervision of the people, acting through their
agents, the General Assembly. He thought,
therefore, that it would be wise to return to an-
nual sessions.
Mr. HARBINE rose and said, it was very far
from his disposition to take any part in this de-
bate, but as only the gentleman from Dorchester,
(Mr. Phelps,) had spoken in favor of biennial
sessions, while several had been heard against
them, he felt it his duty, as a friend of that sys-
tem, to present his views. The precedents that
had been cited, proved that biennial sessions
were no longer an experiment. It was evident
that these precedents had not been without their
effect upon gentlemen on the other side of the
question, from the efforts made by them to do
away their force. He would now endeavor to
reply to some of the arguments that had been
used in favor of annual sessions and against the
present system. The gentleman from Anne Ar-
undel county, (Mr. Wells,) when speaking of
States that had adopted biennial sessions, said
that they were not circumstanced like us; that
Maryland had great commercial and moneyed
interests which demanded more legislation. But
it only required a reference to the population,
wealth and resources of some of these States, to
prove that position incorrect. It was also said,
that in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsyl-
vania, where the great commercial cities of our
country are located, their trade, navigation, and
commerce required annual legislation, and that
Baltimore having very extensive interests of the
same character, we also must have annual ses-
sions. But when, he would ask, under the pre-
sent system had the interests of Baltimore suffer-
ed for want of additional laws ? Missouri has
the same system, and will any one say that her
commercial emporium, St. Louis, has suffered
from that cause? There, too, is the State of
Louisiana. She adopted the biennial system in
the year 1845. Has New Orlenns none of these |
