quest the attendance of members, who might be
in the city, but were not in their seats.
In the mean time,
Mr. PHELPS resumed. If the House was pre-
pared to vote on the proposition now. ha was prepared
to vote; but, as there must be some time
allowed for the call of the House, be would avail
himself of the opportunity to make a few remarks,
particularly as to that branch of the amendment
which imposes a limitation of the session to forty
days. It sometimes happens that very little busi-
ness can be matured in forty days. The election
of a speaker and the officers frequently consumes
much time; and then the Speaker must have an
opportunity to become acquainted with the members,
before he can appoint the committees, after
which a considerable period must elapse before
the committees can mature the business and re-
port to the House. This objection then, must
be fetal to the proposition to limit the session to
forty days. With reference to the expenses he
would state, that the itinerant charges of the session,
amount to about $5000; and if annual sessions
should be determined on, this would be an
annual instead of a biennial charge. The objec-
tion, therefore, to the annul sessions, would not
be obviated by diminishing the length of the session.
The gentleman from Anne Arundel thought
this power to call the Legislature together was a
dangerous power to place in the bands of the
Governor, but there is not a single State in the
Union is which it is not conferred on the Execu-
tive. If war was to be declared against us, or if
some great insult should demand instant reprisal,
or any sudden financial exigency should occur,
he asked, should not the Governor, have power to
assemble the Legislature ?
Mr. RANDALL explained that be was speaking
as between the Governor and the Legislature,
and had then said be thought it would be better
in the hands of the Legislature. than in the Governor.

Mr. PHELPS resumed. We all know that the
Governor has the power to call an extra session.
But if the usual length of the sessions is to be
shortened to one half, the greater part of that
will be consumed in discussing whether the Legislature
shall sit annually or biennially; and
forty days might easily be wasted in such a dis-
cussion. It was urged by the gentleman from
Queen Anne that the Legislature would require
some additional time to carry out the general
principles established by the Constitution in Legislative
districts. In reply to this, he reminded
the gentleman from Queen Anne that there was
now a section in the Constitution which gave the
Legislature power to prolong its sessions, for this
purpose, to six months, or nine months, or twelve
months, or even two years. If new men, fresh
from the people, were sent here every two years,
they would be quite as competent to make such
laws, as to enact all other laws. The gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Tuck,) said that
public sentiment was not disturbed in his county
by the biennial question. Whatever it may have
been in Prince George; he could say that in most
of the counties of the State the biennial bill was
36

circulated and discussed freely, and orators took
the stump for and against it. Great efforts were
made to defeat the bill, on the ground that it was
merely a tub thrown to the whale. It was be-
lieved by many that it was intended only to defeat
the effort to get up this Reform Convention. Yet,
notwithstanding these efforts to prejudice repub-
lic mind against the bill, it obtained a large majority
in the State.
Further proceedings on the call of the Convention
were then dispensed with.
The question then recurred on the modified
amendment of Mr. SPENCER.
Mr. S. asked the yeas and nays, which were
ordered, and being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Buchanan, Welch,
Chambers, of Cecil, Miller, Sprigs, Spencer,
George, Wright, Shriver, Biser, McHenry,
Gwinn, Presstman, Ware, Anderson, Parke,
Shower, Cockey and Brown—39
Negative— Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Dalrymple, Brent, of Charles, Howard,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood, of Talbot,
John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Phelps,
Bowling, Dirickson, Hearn, Jacobs, Thomas,
Gaither. Annan, Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson,
Carter, Stewart, of Caroline, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Waters,
Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick and Smith—40.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPENCER. I now offer the last of the series
of amendments, which I intend to offer on
this subject.
The amendment was read is follows:
Add to the end of the section, the follow pro-
vise:
"Provided, That the judges of elections much
county and city, when this Constitution shall be
submitted to the people for their ratification,
shall put the question distinctly to each voter:
"are you in favor of annual or biennial sessions
of the Legislature ?" and the said judges shall re-
cord separately on their poll books the answer of
each voter to the said question; of which they
shall make return in the same manner as pre-
scribed by law, to ascertain the sense of the peo-
ple on the ratification of said Constitution. And
if a majority of the legal voters in the State
should be in favor of annual sessions, then at the
next meeting of the Legislature, after the ratification
of this Constitution, the Legislature shall
provide by law for annual election of Delegates
to the General Assembly, and for annual sessions
of the Legislature."
The amendment having been read,
Mr. SPENCER demanded the previous question,
but withdrew it at the request of Mr. PRESSTMAN,

Mr. PRESSTMAN rose and stated, that he had up
to this time voted for all the amendments which
had been offered, with a view to defeat the bien-
nial provision. He did not wish the House to
understand him, as seeking to avoid the main
question, from any other motive; and it would be