amendment of the gentleman from Queen Anne.
If it had been offered in & different form, as a.
separate provision, to be separately submitted to
the people, and at & different time, he should
have hesitated to oppose it, hut as a part of the
Constitution to be voted upon as an entirety, he
could not go for it.
Mr. SPENCER was much surprised at the course
of remarks made by the gentleman, (Mr. Ridge-
ly,) from Baltimore county. What change was
there in his proposition ? And what in it, that
the reform party of Maryland had ever opposed ?
Had they ever taken ground that it was danger-
ous to trust the Legislature with questions which
were essential to the protection of the interests
of the people ? For what purpose was the Le-
gislature created ? Is it not intended to represent
the people and to provide laws to promote their
happiness, and to meet their necessities ? The
complaint of the reform party was, that the Le-
gislature had heretofore failed to perform this
duty. They would neither pass the necessary
laws to reform the abuses of the Government,
nor provide for a Convention, to enable the peo-
ple to do it themselves. For years the people
had invoked the Legislature to discharge their
duty and to call a Convention. But it was for a
long time in vain. The call was made—what
reformer will venture to say that the Legislature
is not to be trusted with a power, eminently pro-
tective of the rights of the people.
Mr. RIDGELY interposed. Under its existing
basis, the Legislature would always be distrusted.
Mr. SPENCER replied that it was the basis
which was distrusted and not the Legislature.
Where did the gentleman from Baltimore county
get his construction of the doctrine of the reform
party ? Now, he (Mr. S„) had always been iden-
tified with the reform party. If he had ever ad-
vocated a power in the Constitution to take away
the rights of the people, then the gentleman might
have taken exception to his course. Instead of
doing this, his proposition enlarged the rights of
the people. Was that anti-republican? If so,
he would only say that he must have studied in
the republican school in vain. He examined the
construction put by the gentleman from Baltimore
county on his amendment as authorising the Le-
gislature to extend their sessions as they might
see fit. The gentleman from Baltimore county
said that no person acquainted with human na-
ture would give this power to the Legislature,
because he would know that the feelings of mem-
bers would lead them to vacillate between annual,
or alternate biennial and annual sessions. He
could tell that gentleman, that any member who
would take that course would commit political
suicide.
Mr. RIDGELY said he had confined his views
to the effect of the amendment. He intended
nothing personal.
Mr. SPENCER did not suppose that there was
any thing intended of a personal character. But
his feelings were wounded when he heard a gen-
tleman so respectable, as the gentleman from
Baltimore, express himself so strongly with re-
ference to his amendment. He then reiterated

what he bad before said as to the fifty-ninth arti-
cle.
Mr. BUCHANAN said:
He was heartily sick of the protracted discus-
sion. He only desired to ask his friend from
Queen Anne's, if he would modify his amendment
so as to limit the duration of session to one
half the time now occupied. Of the various ar-
guments which had been made against annual
sessions, he had never yet heard any man speak
against them, either on the ground of their mul-
tiplying legislative business, or avoiding it. When
the biennial bill was before the people, the dis-
cussion as to its propriety or Impropriety turned,
in a measure, on the question of finance. It was
now brought forward as an argument against the
annual system, that it led to so much legislation
that the people would never return to it. That
might serve for an argument, but it was his opin-
ion that the people would prefer annual sessions,
if they could have two annual sessions at no
greater cost than one biennial session. This was
the aim of his suggestion to his friend from Queen
Anne's.
What had experience taught us? The ex-
penses of a legislative session have been about
$56,000. He wished to divide this sum, so as to
make it sufficient for two sessions, by reducing
the duration of each session, one half. As much
work could be done in thirty-five days, by an in-
dustrious legislature, as in twice that period by
one of an opposite character. The people will be
satisfied with annual sessions when they see the
expenses so restricted, as that two of these ses-
sions could be held at no greater expense than
one biennial session.
Mr. SPENCER then (accepting the suggestion of
Mr. BUCHANAN)) modified his amendment by
adding the words, "which shall not continue in
session longer than forty days."
The amendment as modified, read as follows:
"But the legislature shall have the right to pro-
vide by law, for annual elections of delegates to
the General Assembly, and for annual sessions
of the legislature, which shall not continue in
session longer than forty days."
Mr. PHELPS would not have risen to say a
word, but for what had fallen from the gentleman
from Queen Anne's, as to the effect of the
diminution of the term of the session.
Mr. SPENCER interposed and suggested, that,
as he wished to have a full attendance when the
vote on his amendment was taken, he would sug-
gest to the gentleman from Dorchester, (Mr.
Phelps,) to give way for a motion, that there be
a call of the Convention. The gentleman could
conclude his remarks after the call bad been
made.
Mr. PHELPS, acceeding to the suggestion,
yielded the floor.
Mr. SPENCER moved that there he a call of the
Convention; and
It was ordered.
The roll was called.
On the motion of
Mr. SPENCER, the doorkeeper was sent to re-