great interests that require so much legislation ?
Put the trade, commerce, and navigation of Bal-
timore, against the trade, commerce and naviga-
tion of New Orleans, and the scale would prepon-
derate vastly in favor of the latter. If then le-
gislation every two years was sufficient there, it
certainly ought to be here. But go to the new
States, that have adopted the biennial system,
Iowa, Texas, and Arkansas. There, to say the
least, enterprise is as vigorous as here, and from
the very nature of circumstances they must re-
quire more legislation than we, yet they get along
very well, and prosper under biennial sessions.
Nearly all the recently formed State Constitu-
tions contain the same feature, while not one
State that has given it a trial has manifested a
desire to go back to annual sessions. The pre-
sent was the age of "progress," and biennial ses-
sions had become one of its great marks. A
few months since, and the State of Kentucky
made lit part of her system; then the Indiana
Convention, which has recently adjourned, adopt-
ed the same doctrine, and last in this great march
of "progress," came the populous and powerful
State of Ohio, whose Convention, though yet in
session, has made biennial sessions a part of he?
organic law. He hoped that Maryland would
be the last State to renounce this system, the
very last in the language of Webster, to "tread
backward."
Another argument was, that after the adoption
of our new Constitution, "a thousand and one"
questions would require legislation, in order to
make our laws conform to the new system, and,
therefore, we should return to annual sessions.
He did not doubt that much additional legisla-
tion would be required, but for how long? Cer-
tainly only for a few years, until things became
settled under the new system, and then it would
cease. Now, because a necessity for additional
laws would exist far a short time, was to him,
[Mr. H„] not a sufficient cause to justify a pro-
vision for annual sessions all the time.
He hoped the organic law, that the Convention
was now framing, would last for ages, until in
the course of "progress," it would be found unfit
for the changed circumstances of a future peo-
ple; therefore, he could not agree to incorporate
a provision for annual sessions, which at most,
would only be required one or two years. But
for this extra amount of legislation, which would
only be required for a short time, he was remind-
ed by his colleague, that the sixth section of
the present report, made ample provision by
authorizing the legislature during the first two
sessions under the new Constitution, to sit as long
as they might think the public interests required.
Those two sessions would afford sufficient time to
harmonize the laws with the new system, and
fully answered that argument.
Another reason for annual sessions had been
urged with great ability, by the gentleman from
Charles county, (Mr. Merrick.) It was that fre-
quent elections were the bulwarks of civil liber-
ty—that a frequent recurrence to the people was
a fundamental right that ought to be exercised,
else their wishes would be disregarded and evil
consequences ensue. He agreed that elections |
should befrequent—but how frequent That was
the question, and there they differed. He asser-
ted that every two years was frequent enough
for the happiness and prosperity of the people.
On the other side, it was argued that "frequent"
means annual, and that once a year is the proper
time.
The gentleman from Dorchester, had ably ar-
gued that once in two years was often enough;
and he would ask, if all proper and useful legislation
could not be had by biennial sessions, why
the; great States that lived under that system, did
not abandon it?
Mr. H. referred not to those States which had
recently adopted it, but to those that had tried it
during a long course of years. In Arkansas, the
biennial system was introduced in the year 1836;
in North Carolina in the year 1836; in Delaware
in the year 1833; in Missouri in the year 1820.
If all the evils predicted by the gentleman from
Charles county, were to flow from this system,
why had not these States abandoned it long, long
ago ? Does not the fact that they still adhere
to it, prove these evils a mere chimera, and that
argument naught but the "baseless fabric of a
vision."' The position was not only incorrect,
but that system must operate well, else the States
that adopted it, would not be among the most
prosperous and flourishing in the Union.
By another argument, it had been said, that
biennial sessions in this State, had caused bad
legislation, and under that system business would
necessarily have to be pushed and hurried
through at the end of the session, without suffi-
cient or even any examination.
But had not this also been the case, when the
sessions were annual ? Without experience him-
self, Mr. H. had heard from others, that this evil
was caused, not by the want of time to transact
all the business, but because at the beginning of
the sessions, too much time had been spent over
champaigne at dinner, and over oyster suppers.
Now, if gentlemen could show him, that under
the old system, this same waste of time did not or
would not exist, he would concede the argument;
but the facts were too well known to expect any
such an attempt. There was an abundance of
time under the system, as it now existed in this
State, to do all the legislation required; yet, if we
must have more time, he would rather extend
the sessions a little, than have them annual. He
would now come to the argument of the other
gentleman from Anne Arundel county, (Mr.
Donaldson.) It was that the financial affairs of
the State, could not be so well regulated, and
fraud upon the Treasury so well prevented or ex-
posed, by biennial, as by annual sessions of the
Legislature. All agree, that so far there has
been no reason to complain of the present sys-
tem on that score. But if an annual investiga-
tion of the finances be necessary to prevent
abuses, could it not be done without incurring
the expense of a session of the Legislature? Such
a thing was certainly possible, and now, while
engaged in framing the organic law, is "the
day, now's the hour," to provide remedies for
defects complained of, and the evils that might
arise under the present system. The committee |
