public business, growing out of the necessary
legislation, to put in proper motion the machine
of government. He was disposed to admit the
truth of the remark, yet he thought, that exigen-
cy amply provided for; first, in the fact that the
sixth section of the bill removed all limitation as
to the duration of the two first sessions of the leg-
islature, after the ratification of the Constitution;
and it was further provided, that the Governor
should have the power to call extra sessions, if
the public interest demanded it. Certainly it
was wiser to trust to the capacity of these means
to meet the emergency, to be produced by the
accumulation of business for the first two or three
years, under the new government, than to ven-
ture upon the extreme measure proposed by the
amendment of conferring upon the legislature the
power of altering the Constitution; and, indeed,
it appeared to him, that the very fact urged by
the gentleman from Queen Anne's, that the in-
crease of business would note extend over two or
three sessions, was an admission, that biennial
sessions would thereafter amply meet the public
interests.
If, then, the absence of all limitation upon the
two first sessions, as to time, and the power of
the Governor to call a special legislature, will
more than probably meet the exigency for the
period of two or three years, shall we engraft
a principle upon the Constitution which recog-
nizes legislative power over it, and that, too, for
purpose comparatively unimportant
He had not intended to say a word upon the
subject of annual or biennial sessions, consider-
ing that question closed by the decided vote of
yesterday, but the remarks of gentlemen on
that subject, he could not permit to pass in si-
lence.
The honorable gentleman from Prince George's,
(Mr. Tuck,) had produced the returns of the
election held, by which biennial sessions of the
legislature was adopted; and had argued from the
meagre vote then polled, that the presumption
was fair, that it was not a reliable exponent of
the popular sentiment—the vote being some twen-
ty thousand short. He had also analysed the
vote, and shown that some of the western coun-
ties, which were now loudest in favor of biennial
sessions) were then against it, including Balti-
more county, which cast a majority of one hun-
dred and thirty votes against the law. He would
not stop to vindicate the silent votes, or twenty
thousand absentees from the polls, from the in-
ference drawn by the gentleman from Prince
George's, that if they had voted, the result might
have been against biennial session. It was
equally fair to presume the reverse—it might
have swelled the majority. Such inquiry was
entirely speculative; out he would say, that he
did not regard that vote as a reliable expression
of public opinion, for another and a very differ-
ent reason. The biennial session bill was,
in the first place, a legislative amendment to the
Constitution, and was objectionable to Conven-
tional reformers as such,
In the second place, it was originated by the
gentleman from Dorchester, (Mr. Phelps,) whose
motive was well known. He had always been

recognized as an anti-reformer, and from an anti-
reform county. It was well understood in the
larger counties, that the then movement was in-
tended to put off conventional reform, to defer
our hopes and expectations of a Convention. In
fact, it was known to be an anti-reform mea-
sure—hence, the city of Baltimore, and all the
large counties, went against it. That was the
reason why that vote—although a majority vote
of five thousand—was not a reliable exponent of
public sentiment. Now that we have obtained
a Convention; and have no longer distrust of the
movement, but, on the contrary, every reason to
to recgnise it as a salutary measure of reform
and retrenchment, the sentiment of the people is
insympathy with it. For one, as a reformer, it
was his theory, never to let go a jot or title of
a point once gained, but to struggle on for fur-
ther acquisition. His friend from Carroll, (Mr.
Brown,) had asked the gentleman from Dorches-
ter, (Mr. Phelps,) if he would vote for any Con-
stitution that was formed by the Convention,
thereby meaning to test his sincerity in offering
the proposition for biennial sessions. That gen-
tleman bad answered the question for himself,
with frankness. He would now ask his friend
from Carroll, to look at the vote of Anne Arun-
del county, fifteen hundred majority against bien-
nial sessions, and apply the game test to that del-
egation—all of whom have supported the amend-
ment under consideration, and gone in a body
against biennal sessions. It was a pregnant fact,
that while every other county in the State, gave
a comparatively short vote, Anne Arundel had
given fifteen hundred majority against biennial
sessions. He repeated, it was a pregnant fact,
and he would make no comment upon it. Such
was, nevertheless, the infirmity of human nature,
that people would vote according to their inter-
ests, ana if the power was given to the Legisla-
ture, to say whether that body should meet an-
nual or biennially, a considerable portion of
every session would be employed in the discus-
sion of that question, and the influences—local
influences—surrounding the body, would be
strung to their utmost capacity; and past experi-
ence, and a very superficial knowledge of human
nature, indicates very clearly, that annual ses-
sions would soon become the fixed law. His friend
from Carroll, had misconceived the meaning of
the terms "frequent elections," as used in the
bill of rights. The political doctrine meant to
be affirmed by that sentiment, was inseparable
from all free government. It was proclaimed by
our forefathers, in view of the long duration of
parliament, without a return of the delegated
power to the people. The direct accountability
of public servants, and frequent returns of the
political power to the constituency, gives an op-
portunity for change in office, when the people
require it. It does not follow that elections
should be annual, if the accountability exists,
and may be enforced by the public within reason-
able periods, so as not to postpone the right to
change officers to too great a distance from the
appointing power.
He concluded by slating, that for the reasons
he had assigned, he should vote against the