these four or five years immediately after the
adoption of the new Constitution, more legisla-
tion would be required than in perhaps any ten
years after; and during that time too, we were to
have a body highly incompetent, engaged in codi-
fying our statutes. This period was a most un-
fortunate one for such an attempt; not only be-
cause of the number of laws necessarily acted
upon, but because of their importance. He
agreed with the several gentlemen who had spo-
ken of the evil consequences of legislative codi-
fication, while our laws were in their present
condition. It would uproot our fundamental
laws. Let a code be prepared by persons of sufficient
ability, who could devote time enough to
it; and, after its adoption, but not before, would
the Legislature be competent to perform the du-
ties imposed upon them by the amendment al-
ready adopted. They could then see the law at
a glance; but now it was often very difficult to
find, and still more difficult to ascertain its mean-
ing, when found. He did not agree with those
who thought that the amendment by making it
more difficult to legislate properly, would pre-
vent an excess of laws and therefore exert a good
influence. That would not prevent legislation.
As heretofore, those who did not know the laws
in existence, would still frame bills. No one
likes to confess his ignorance and inability; and
self-esteem, as it so often does, would still urge
persona to do that which they did not understand.
But his colleague had added to the section, as
amended, a clause to codify, and that he would
most cheerfully sustain, it would make the sec-
tion more palateable and he would be compelled
to swallow the bitter with the sweet.
Mr, DORSEY desired to say a few words in re-
ply to the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr.
Thomas,) and in explanation of the substitute
which he had moved to the section. He defended
the preference which he had expressed for sup-
plements over original bills, because a law, of
which the index was imperfect, and which could
not be found without great difficulty, when in
an original bill, could be found easily when in a
supplement, that always giving a direct reference
to the bill to which it is supplemental, and, if it
could be found through the supplement, why
hunt through a mass of original bills to find it;
By the supplement, you are referred to the original
bill, and then you have the contents of both
presented to your view. He referred to the
loose and unsatisfactory character of the amend-
ment which was adopted yesterday, and read the
following extract from it, "Every law &c., shall
embrace but one subject." And yet there can
scarcely ever be found a law of any length that
does not, of necessity, embrace various subjects.
He objected to the amendment, therefore, on
that ground. If the meaning was subject mat-
ter necessarily brought in connection with each
other by the enactment, fifty original bills,
might be required to accomplish that for which,
without his amendment, a single original bill would
be all-sufficient. The expression, "one subject, "ap-
peared to him not to express the meaning of its
author and incapable of being reduced to practice.
Then the amendment went on to say, "and that

shall be described in the title." Now if there
happen to be many of these subjects in the bill,
the effect of this provision might be to make the
title of the bill of useless and intolerable length.
It would be much better for persons to look into
the bill itself, and read its enactments through.
In reply to what had been said by the gentleman
from Frederick, in relation to the salary of the
Chancellor, he said he had no doubt that the
Legislature did not vote inadvertently, but knew
very well what they were voting for. But his
strongest objection was to the last part of the
amendment, which reads "but in all cases all
parts to be revived or amended, that are embraced
in the object of the bill, shall be re-enacted and
published at length." This would render it ne-
cessary to re-enact every clause and portion of
the whole law, on which the amendment could
operate, though entirely abrogated or constructively
repealed by the amendment made. Though
such be the obvious construction of the amend-
ment, such surely was not the design of its
mover. He thought the whole amendment so
loosely put together, that, in its present form, it
could not be adopted. He regarded the subject
of codification as an entirely independent propo-
sition, He approved of some part of the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Washington, (Mr.
Schley.) but not of the other part, and therefore
would be compelled to vote against it.
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore city, said he con-
curred entirely in the argument of his distinguished
friend from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) and
had fell its force from the beginning. He, (Mr.
S.,) was at all times unwilling to intrude upon
gentlemen, who were addressing the Convention;
but he had risen for the purpose of asking a
question. Suppose a law, thus re-enacted,
should be imperfect by the omission of four or
five laws, all relating to the same subject-mat-
ter—would the re-enacted law, in this imper-
fect condition, be a constitutional exercise of the
legislative power ? He looked upon this amend-
ment as vesting in the Legislature a particular
and limited authority. They were to re-enact the
whole law—all parts of the law were to be em-
bodied in the re-enactment. If, therefore, they
should omit several laws, would not that bean
imperfect exercise of the legislative power, and
would it not render the law unconstitutional?
He also desired to ask the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, another question, whether, in the
absence of any repealing clause in the re-enacted
law, the laws which had been omitted would not
remain in full force and vigor, provided there
were no conflict between the provisions of the
original laws and of those which had been re-en-
acted? He assumed, in the first place, that the
exercise of this power, was the exercise of a
special authority, and that the whole law must
he re-enacted, or that it would not be worth the
paper on which it was printed; and, in the second
place, that if there be not a repealing clause in
the re-enacted law, any laws which might be
omitted, provided they were not in conflict with
any portion of the re enactment, would remain
in full and vigorous operation, and that the courts
must so decide.