within the last few days of the session, which
might render its exercise necessary.
Mr. BROWN suggested that if the amendment
should be adopted, it would change the prece-
ding part of the section. The power to pass a
bill in case of urgency would be taken away.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, said it did not affect
that question at all; and gave his construction o
the section.
Some conversation followed.
Mr. BROWN said, he would not press his view
of the question, though it appeared to him that
the amendment tangled up the section.
Mr. MERRICK said, that he thought the three-
fourths vote required by the section was an ample
guaranty against any improper legislation. The
Convention might be satisfied that three-fourths
of the Legislature would never concur in any le-
gislation that was not necessary. Why then
should their hands be tied up in this manner. Let
the bill stand as it did.
Mr, SPENCER assented to the construction put
upon the amendment by Mr. BROWN; and explain-
ed what his (Mr. S.'s,) understanding of the effect
would be. It seemed to him that under this
amendment, a bill could not be passed even if the
Legislature were unanimously of opinion that the
case of urgency had arisen. He thought the sec-
tion was already protected sufficiently well.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, explained his con-
struction of the section, and asked the gentleman
from Queen Anne, (Mr. Spencer,) to point out
in what particular he (Mr. C.) was mistaken.
The simple object of the amendment was to
take away all discretion from the Legislature for
the last three days of the session, so that no bill
might be introduced for the first time; that was
to say, if there was an urgent necessity, a law
might be completed, but could not be originated.
He referred to the irregular manner in which the
business of the Legislature was carried on during
the last days of the session, and said that not one
member in twenty-five knew any thing of the
contents of bills brought in under such circum-
stances until they read them on the statute book.
As regarded the emergencies to which refer-
ence had been made; every man and woman
in the State knew when the Legislature met, and
when it would adjourn. And to suppose that
any such great and sudden novelty in the affairs
of the State would arise, was, he thought, specu-
lating rather too much upon remote probabilities.
We must conduct the affairs of State upon ration-
al probabilities—and there was no rational pro-
bability of such an event. Every general rule
was attended with some inconveniences. Against
these, it was not possible to guard. No human
legislation was perfect. Perfection belonged
only to One—and that not an earthly Being,
Mr. C. hoped the amendment would be agreed
to.
Mr. BROWN still dissented from the construc-
tion of Mr. CHAMBERS, and insisted that the
amendment if adopted, would take away from the
Legislature that discretion which was necessary
for the protection of the people.
Mr. MERRICK said, it was true, as the gentle-
man from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] had stated, that

nothing on earth was perfect—and that the busi-
ness of the legislature, during the last days of its
session, was conducted with irregularity. But
that was the fault of the legislators themselves—
not of the law. And even that irregularity took
place only as to matters of indifferent interest,
and not as to matters of grave and general con-
cern. If the amendment should prevail, the leg-
islature would not be able, even by unanimous
concurrence, as to the necessity of the case, to
bring in a bill whatever the emergency might be.
In his experience, he had known such emergen-
cies. He referred to the ten millions bill passed
by Congress within the last two or three days of
the expiration of its term, to enable the adminis-
tration to put the country into a state of defence
supposed to be necessary by the Navy Island [Car-
oline] affair.
Might not some strong necessity—of rebellion,
insurrection or invasion—arise in our own State ?
No risk could be run by leaving this discretion
with the legislature, unloss upon the supposition
that that body was corrupt, and that this Conven-
tion was immaculate. He repeated that the
three-fourths restriction was a sufficient guaran-
ty that no mischievous or improper act would be
done—whilst great evil might result from taking
away the power.
Mr. PHELPS gave notice, that if the amend-
ment should be adopted, he would move to strike
out "three-fourths" and insert "two-thirds;" and
also to alter the phraseology of the last line of
the bill.
Mr. STEPHENSON called for the reading of the
amendment, which was again read.
Mr, SPENCER, asked the yeas and nays on its
adoption, which were refused.
The question was then taken, and the amend-
ment was rejected.
Mr. PHELPS suggested a verbal amendment,
which was rejected,
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to amend said section
by inserting after the word "read," in the third
line, the word "through."
[So that, Mr. S. said, the bill should be read
through each time.]
Mr. MERRICK opposed the amendment. Some
of the bills were very long, and took up much
time in reading.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, moved an amend-
ment to the amendment, providing that the bill
should be read "once through, and twice by its ti-
tle."
Mr. MERRICK hoped that his friend from Caro-
line, [Mr. Stewart,] would see the necessity of
leaving these things to the discretion of the legis-
lature.
Mr. SCHLEY suggested that the whole object
of the section would be defeated unless some
such amendment was inserted. He hoped the
amendment of the gentleman from Harford, [Mr.
Stephenson] would be agreed to.
After some conversation between Messrs.
CHAMBERS, of Kent, and SCHLEY,
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, withdrew his
amendment,
Mr. STEPHENSON asked the yeas and nays on
his amendment, which were refused.