the distance they live from this place. But it
is contrary to any principle to call this hun-
dred dollars mileage, or to take it as mileage.
And in reply to the gentleman from Anne
Arundel (Mr. Miller) who says that if we do
not take it we adjudge ourselves to be not as
worthy as members of the legislature, I say
that if the convention adopts this order, it
will adjudge itself very unworthy. I hope
we are not so unworthy as to take it.
Another point which I wish to state is just
this: It is a rule of construction that where
there is a doubt as to what a law means, you
must arrive, if you can. at the intention of
the law-makers; and that intention, if it can
be clearly arrived at, will aid you in constru-
ing the law. Now when the bill was passed
calling this convention together, the joint
resolution in relation to mileage had not been
passed by the general assembly. The conven-
tion bill was passed on the 3d of February,
1864. That bill says that the members of the
convention should receive the same per diem
as members of the general assembly. Up to
that time no member of the legislature had
ever received " one hundred dollars, in addi-
tion to his usual mileage." The joint resolu-
tion in relation to mileage was passed on the
9th of March, 1864, more than a month after
the convention bill had been passed. Now,
will it be said that the legislature intended
the members of this convention to receive this
additional hundred dollars, when that thing
had never been heard of when the convention
bill was passed? How could they have con-
templated any such thing? They said that
the members of the convention should receive
the same mileage that had always been allowed
and received up to that time. It is clear to my
mind, that they did not intend, when they
passed the convention bill, for us to have this
hundred dollars; and that if we take it, we
take it without any real principle to justify
us in doing so. As my colleague (Mr. Stock-
bridge) says, if we are going to take it, let
us take it as a bonus, or extra compensation,
or something of that kind; let us call it by
its right name, and take it upon the theory
adopted by same members of this convention,
that we are not bound by the convention bill
at all. Do not let us do in a roundabout
way that which we would not do directly.
Mr. RIDGELY. This subject has taken a
most extraordinary turn. The gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) has referred
to the proceedings which took place in the
general assembly at the time of the passage
of those two propositions—the convention
bill and joint resolution number four. As I
understand him, he has invoked those pro-
ceedings as furnishing a key for unlocking
the meaning of this law. If I have under-
stood him correctly, then this is the first time
that I have ever in my life heard that the
transactions which took place in a legislative
body could be invoked as a means of inter- |
preting the meaning of a statute. Yon
might as well call the members of the legisla-
ture into a court of justice, and ask them to
testify upon the witness stand as to their in-
tention and their purpose when they voted for
any particular law, as to invoke them under
circumstances of this kind. When we are
called upon to expound a statute, we are to
take its contents and to arrive at the meaning
of the law from the statute itself, and not go
behind the statute into the proceedings of the
legislature for lights by which we ale to be
guided in reaching the true meaning of the
contents of the statute.
We cannot go behind the law. That law
1 hold in my hand, and in my judgment it
is clear of all ambiguity in its context. What
are its words ?
" And said convention shall have full
power and authority to determine on the va-
lidity of the election and qualification of its
members; and the compensation of the dele-
gates to said convention shall be five dollars
per day, and the mileage allowed to the
members of the general assembly of this
State."
They do not call it "bonus." They do
not call it by any other name than its proper
name—"and the mileage allowed to the
members of the general assembly of this
State." What general assembly? Any par-
ticular general assembly? The general as-
sembly of last year, or year before last, or
four or five years before?
Mr. MILLER. Not "as is now allowed,"
but as "is allowed to members of the general
assembly.' '
Mr. RIDGELY. Yes, sir. Can there be any
ambiguity about the phraseology of that
law? True, I concede to the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) that you are to
look to the intention of the legislature. But
you are to look to the text of fie law from
which to gather that intention of the legisla-
ture. Did the legislature mean to convey
the idea that this was to be received as a
bonus—as a compensation in the form of ex-
tra per diem? On the contrary, the phrase-
ology used shows that it was to be received
as mileage. As mileage in what connection?
As mileage in connection with the mileage
which was to be received by members of the
genera] assembly, and the legislature received
the mileage prescribed in resolution number
four. What is that resolution ?
' ' Resolved by the general assembly of Mary-
land, That the sum of one hundred dollars,
in addition to their usual mileage, be paid to
each of the senators and delegates of the
general assembly."
Not in addition to their per diem—not in
addition to any other compensation which
shall be received by that body. But it was
in connection with the word " mileage." It
was to be received "in addition to their usual
mileage." It will be in vain for honorable |
