nial sessions, as a measure of retrenchment. That
was true; but now, when our debt is likely to be
paid off, if we check those wisely concocted mea-
sures of finance, which have been the means of
resting our prosperity, rely on it, the people will
cry out against us. If he could see the necessity
for annual sessions, he, for one, would vote to
return to them, but he thought the business could
be done just as well by biennial as annual ses-
sions. The Legislature, if industrious, can pass
all necessary laws in sixty days, just as well as
six months, and if not, they have the power to
extend their session, in view of perfecting changes
on account of the Constitution now being made
to six months or longer, if found necessary; and
then, if the system may be found not to work
well, they can but return to annual sessions. But
there is no fear as to the result. The proposition
of his colleague was a self-evident one, he thought,
and ought to carry conviction to the mind of eve-
ry one; he trusted it would be adopted, as great
good would certainly grow out of its adoption.
Mr. SCHLEY said that when the proposition for
biennial sessions was before the people, he voted
against it, believing that it was a scheme de-
signed to get rid of a Reform Convention. He
had been influenced by the opinion, that elec-
tions should be frequent, and that the Legisla-
ture ought to meet annually to supervise the ac-
counts of the Treasurer. His first objection was
removed by the call of the Convention, and his
second, by the action of the people establishing
biennial sessions. The more he reflected on the
subject, the more was he satisfied with the deci-
sion of the people on this question. He would
now vote for biennial sessions; first, because as a
financial measure, it would lessen the burden of
taxation; and, secondly, because the people had
expressly sanctioned the system. He could bear
testimony to what was yesterday said by the gentlemen
from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas.) He had
found no man who had raised his voice against
this biennal system. It was, therefore, to be re-
garded as a settled question; and, in his vote, he
intended to act in conformity with the will of the
people. Another reason which influenced him,
was, that nearly half the States of the Union, had
adopted the principle; and lastly, he would vote
for it from a thorough conviction that it will, if
rejected, put in jeopardy the Constitution itself.
The people had reflected on the subject, and had
made the change, and it would endanger the
Constitution to insert a provision in opposition
to their expressed will. He desired to make the
new Constitution such as they will approve and
adopt. He had merely risen to make these brief
remarks, and he would now move the previous
question. He withdrew the motion at the re-
quest of Mr, DONALDSON, who promised to re-
new it.
Mr. DONALDSON merely desired to say a few
words, by way of explanation. Gentlemen on
the other side seemed to have understood his
argument, as if he meant that the accounts of
the Treasurer alone, were to be subject to the
inspection of the Legislature. The check to
which he referred, was upon all the accounting
officers in the State, including the Treasurer,

whose returns where made to the House of Dele-
gates, and there became the subject of various
enquiries and orders, which often proceeded
from not the most friendly sources. This respon-
sibility, and tills apprehension, tended to make
those officers prompt, efficient and scrupulous.
In regard to the excess of legislation, he repeat-
ed that it was his conviction, that the evil was
really increased by the biennial system, and, in
this connexion, he gave some further illustra-
tions of his views,
Mr. DONALDSON concluded by renewing, (ac-
cording to promise,) the demand for the previous
question.
Mr. BREST, of Charles, desired to offer an
amendment, (which was not now in order.)
Some conversation followed on a point of
order, in which Mr. MCHENRY and the PRESI-
DENT, pro tem., took part,
Mr. SCHLEY now withdrew the previous ques-
tion, at the request of
Mr. BRENT, of Charles, who, in accordance
with the indication he had this morning given,
sent to the clerk's table, to be read, an amend-
ment, which he intended to offer when in order,
and which is given hereafter.
Mr. B., in accordance with his pledge, renew-
ed the demanded for the previous question.
There was a second, and the main question
was ordered to be now taken.
The first question was on the amendment of
Mr. SPRIGG, as accepted by Mr. MERRICK.
Mr. DIRICKSON asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and having been taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Buchanan, Welsh, Con-
stable, Chambers, of Cecil, McLane, Bowie,
Sprigg. McCubbin, Spencer, George, Wright,
Shriver, Biser, McHenry, Magraw, Gwinn,
Brent of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Davis,
Anderson, Parke, Shower and Brown—33.
Negative— Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Dalrymple, Brent, of Charles, Bell,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood, of Tal-
bot, Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bow-
ling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Gaither, Annan, Stephenson,
Nelson, Carter, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery,
Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Waters, Brewer, Weber, Hollyday, Fitz-
patrick, Smith and Cockey—47.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Charles, now offered the fol-
lowing amendment:
Amend the said second section by striking out
all after the words "term of," where they
secondly occur in the second line, and inserting
in lieu thereof, the following:
"One year from the day of the gen-
eral election, for the first two years after the
adoption of this Constitution, and thereafter for
the term of two years from the day of each gene-
ral election, so that the first two sessions of the