point of view. It would obviate the unpleasant
necessity of non-concurring with others as to the
hour of adjournment, for if they should pass this
order, they would have a fixed hour for adjourn-
ment. Whenever he had voted against aques-
tion of adjournment, that was desired by a large
minority even, he had done it with the greatest
reluctance, but he had done so with a high sense
of public duty.
As to the personal inconvenience of these
sessions to the gentleman from Anne Arundel,
nothing would give him greater pleasure than to
consult him, but that gentleman could pair off
with a gentleman holding different views. If
after practice, they should find it necessary to
change this rule, was it not according to orders
that they should act under it until they had vo-
ted for or against all propositions that were to be
submitted as to how the legislative branch of the
government should be formed? After they had
done this, and when the judicial question should
be taken up for debate, it might then be lime
enough to abolish the order, and come back to
the old system. The public interest demanded
this sacrifice at their hands.
Mr. JENIFER remarked, that it appeared to
him that there was but one question involved in
this proposition. He thought it was the best
mode of expediting the public business, and if
members would meet at the hours prescribed in
the order, he was sure much might be done.—
But he had seen it here and elsewhere, as the
result of evening sessions, unless they had some
specific object in view, he believed it would
take more time the next morning to undo the
proceedings of the evening before than would
be gained by those meetings.
He was, however, willing to try the experi-
ment, or any other, that might expedite the bu-
siness of the Convention, He was apprehensive,
that in a very short time they would find it ne-
cessary to rescind the order, as being the means
of delaying, instead of facilitating the business
of the session. For himself, he was willing to
meet at any hour, and sit as late as the most in-
dustrious or most impatient member of the Con-
vention; always excepting too early an hour in
the morning, as his physician had told him it
was very prejudicial to health.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, inquired if the hour
had not arrived for the consideration of the or-
der of the day?
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to postpone the order
of the day; which motion was agreed to.
Mr. DORSEY said that as the experience of
the gentleman from Frederick, had been given
in opposition thereto, he would state the result
as well of his observation, as of experience.—
About the year 1793, he believed, he came to
the Annapolis College, and look much pleasure
inattending the debates of the Legislature. He
saw it frequently in afternoon session?, near its
final adjournment for the year. |
If gentlemen had witnessed such scenes then
as he hat, and if they had had reporters to have
placed them on record, public opinion as to af-
ternoon sessions, would have been long since
formed.
Mr. D. referred to the experience he had had
for many years, when a member of the Legisla-
ture, and stated that he had again and again, at
sessions held under like circumstances, seen the
House adjourn, because the conduct of members
was such that it was utterly impossible to trans-
act legislative business. He was confident that
the Convention would stand much lower in the
opinion of the public, than it now does, if the
proceedings of their afternoon sessions should be
faithfully presented to the world through their
reporters. As to the evening sessions of the
Congress of the United States, he had heard such
descriptions given of those sessions, as well by
newspapers as bymembers themselves, as were
any thing but creditable to that body. He was
sure the people expected graver deliberation in
the formation of the Constitution, than could be
hoped for in afternoon sessions.
He was satisfied that if this order should be
adopted, no lime would he given to members to
prepare themselves to offer the necessary amend-
ments and to vote understandingly upon the
great subjects that would come before them, and
that more time would be wasted in motions to
reconsider, than could be gained by enlarging the
number of hour in session, nut for grave and
deliberate, but for reckless legislation. Such
proceedings are wholly inappropriate to a Con-
stitutional Convention, if a legislature acts un-
wisely, its errors may be corrected at its next
annual session. Not so with such a Convention;
it holds no such succeeding session.
Mr. WEEMS said:
That he should vote against the adoption of
this order; for he did not think they would gain
much time by its adoption if they should meet
at ten o'clock and sit until four, they would thus
get clear of afternoon sessions and should then
have been employed in that hall six hours. This
was as lung as any gentleman was willing to sit
engaged in business at this or at any session.
If they should meet at ten and adjourn at two,
they would then be four hours in session. They
would then meet at four and he presumed would
adjourn by seven, which would be three hours,
making altogether seven hours. They should,
under this order, if adopted, gain seven hours.—
Then the question arose, whether or not, they
should in reality, gain any thing, or whether, in
reality, they should not: lose.
He had attended evening sessions of the legis-
lature, and must confess that in ordinary legislation,
he had witnessed scenes of confusion and
disorder which he hoped never would be witnes-
sed in that body, having for its object, graver and
much more important subjects than ordinary
legislation.
He entertained serious doubts whether they |
