be restored to the bill by the adoption of his
amendment.
Mr. DONALDSON said the whole of the pro-
gramme of the gentleman from Frederick was
entirely consistent with his opinion in favor of
biennial sessions. But, as he illustrated in a few
explanatory remarks, it was directly in conflict
with the amendment he (Mr. D.) had offered.
Mr. CHAMBERS said;
The bill as framed by the committee contem-
plated annual sessions, A vote of the House ap-
parently decisive, had expressed a preference for
biennial sessions. The amendments so far adopt-
ed, would require the first election for the first
biennial session to be held in the fall of 1852, un-
less, indeed, it should be designed to have the
election sixteen months before the session com-
menced, instead of four, which he could not pre-
sume to be the design. The amendment now
offered by the gentleman from Frederick) (Mr.
Thomas,) was calculated to foreclose that ques-
tion. He thought it ought to await the action of
a full house. He regarded it as an important
question, and thought the elections ought to be
thrown upon the even years, so that every alter-
nate election should occur at the same time as
the election for electors of President.
It was certainly desirable in every general
election to furnish every facility and every in-
ducement to voters to express their opinions.
He thought it quite undeniable that a more full
expression of popular sentiment could be expect-
ed, when in addition to the interest excited by
the election for State officers, there would be
added the further interest of a Presidential elec-
tion. To this motive was added another—that
of economy. Why incur the unnecessary expense
of two elections, when you gain all the advanta-
ges, and indeed additional advantages, by having
one " Not only would the number of voters be
diminished, and the permanent expenses of the
counties be unnecessarily increased, but we are
now asked to provide for a third annual session
of the Legislature to enable us to bring about
these mischiefs. He held it to be altogether un-
necessary to hold three successive sessions to
carry out the details of the provisions to be adopt-
ed in the new Constitution. It ought all to be
done in a single session—certainly in two.
Mr. THOMAS briefly replied that as the House
had already determined as to the time of elec-
tions, that question was settled. It had also in-
corporated the amendment, offered by the gentle-
man from Queen Anne's, to the fifth section, and
that without the present amendment, rendered
the bill a deformity. He stated that he had
agreed to the amendment making it imperative
on the Legislature to hold a second session, be-
cause he believed that the Legislature would
have done so without such provision. His sole
object was to make one section in accordance
with another, and his amendment would be in
strict conformity with the provisions agreed on by
the House.
Mr. MERRICK said he certainly preferred that
the sessions of the Legislature should be held in
even years. If the amendment of the gentleman

from Frederick was not adopted, the consequence
would be, that the Delegates would be elected
eighteen months before the session.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The gentleman from Frede-
rick, (Mr. Thomas,) was mistaken in the fact
that the House had passed upon the question of
the time of the election. His friend from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Donaldson,) had offered an amend-
ment to the third section, which was intended to
settle that question, but being one of importance
it was passed over informally in consequence of
the absence of a large number of members. It
was no great evidence of temerity, therefore, to
presume, as he had ventured to do, that the
House would provide for an election four months
prior to the session, rather than sixteen months
before the inembers elect would take their seats.
As the matter stood, without the amendment now
tor the first time offered, that was the only ques-
tion. in regard to this amendment, he must
again ask, " cui bono ? " The gentleman had
heard his objections, very briefly to be sure, but
very distinctly stated; first, that every one who
encouraged the exercise of this great prerogative
of a freeman—the right of suffrage—should mul-
tiply the facilities and inducements to a lull ex-
pression of popular sentiment; and, secondly,
that every motive of economy was disregarded
by the proposed measure. He could not but in-
vite the attention of the House to the fact that
the gentleman had not even made a beginning to
answer these objections.
Mr. THOMAS suggested that if the gentleman
from Kent was willing to do so, they might go
hack to the third section and test the sense of the
House by a vote, which would settle the difficul-
ty.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The reason which induced
the House to pass informally by the third sec-
tion is of greater force now. If so important a
measure should be determined by so thin a House
as we now have, it would of course be reconsid-
ered when absent members resume their seats.
He wished the subject still to remain open.
The question was then stated to be the amend-
ment of Mr. THOMAS.
Mr. THOMAS asked the yeas and nays.
Which were ordered; and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot,
Chambers of Cecil, McCullough, McLane, Spen-
cer, George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Brent of Baltimore city, Ware, Harbine, Brew-
er, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
Ege, Shower and Brown—36.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Ri-
caud, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Dorsey, Wells, Dalrymple, Merrick, John Den-
nis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Sprigg, Bowling,
Dirickson, Jacobs, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, Davis, Waters, Smith,
Parke and Cockey—27.
So the amendment was agreed to.