lature, recorded as their proceedings, their
laws and resolutions. What do we find
there? We find that the legislature expressly
stated that this hundred dollars was to be
allowed as mileage. "Resolved that the sum
of one hundred dollars, in addition to their
usual mileage," etc. And that resolution is
accompanied by a report which begins :
' 'The committee on claims, to which was
referred an order of the house, of the second
day of March, 1864, instructing them to re-
adjust the mileage of the members of the gen-
eral assembly, respectfully report," &c,
I do not say it is mileage; that is another
affair. I say the legislature called it mileage.
However, more of that presently.
Now I want this question answered. Sup-
pose the convention bill, instead of saying we
shall be allowed "the mileage allowed to
the members of the general assembly of this
State," had said—"shall be allowed the
hundred dollars allowed to the members of
the present general assembly." Would there
then be any difficulty about it? Would any
man here doubt? Could be doubt, if the bill
said expressly "the hundred dollars allowed
as mileage to the members of the present gen-
eral assembly?" There would be no doubt
then, would there? And yet the same ob-
jection would apply to the term "mileage."
That objection therefore is not sufficient; it
is not available. It is not for us to deter-
mine whether this is properly termed "mile-
age;" the legislature have determined that.
Suppose another case; suppose the legisla-
ture had violated the law, for that makes no
difference in the argument. Suppose that in-
stead of four dollars a day they bad taken
eight dollars a day, and that in this conven-
tion bill that had said in so many words—
"the members of the convention shall receive
the per diem which the present legislature
have received." That bill goes before the
people, and the people confirm it. It is no
longer the work of the legislature, gentlemen
say, but it is the work of the people. The
people therefore have said, not at all giving
an opinion as to whether it was right or
wrong, as regards the legislature, the people
have said that that bill should be the law of
the convention. What then would have
been the per diem of members of this body?
Four dollars? or eight dollars? Would gen-
tlemen have gone back of the act of assembly ?
There is the law. You say it is obliga-
tory. And that law says you shall have
sight dollars a day, says it just as much as if
it had been in these words, instead of "the
per diem which the members of the present
legislature have received." You would not
have gone back of that for any law about
the matter. The first canon of interpretation
is that when a matter is referred to, it is
just the same thing as if it had been intro-
duced without a reference. When yon refer
to what the legislature received, it is just ex- |
actly the same as if you stated in so many
words what the legislature did receive.
Now, having relieved this matter from
these difficulties, as to whether it be right or
wrong, or whether it be mileage or not, 1
admit that it is not mileage according to the
dictionary. But the legislature called it
mileage, and received it as mileage. Nobody
can doubt that we are to receive for mileage
what was allowed to the general assembly,
The only difficulty is, what did the legisla-
ture receive as mileage. This business of
increasing the mileage was no new thing in
1864, Here is a joint resolution passed on
the 4th of May, 1861.
"Resolved by the general assembly of Ma-
ryland. That the sum of eighteen dollars, in
addition to their usual mileage, be paid to
each of the senators and delegates, and the
officers of each house, from the following
counties and Baltimore city, to wit: Cecil,
Kent, Talbot, Queen Anne's, Caroline, Dor-
chester, Somerset, Worcester, St. Mary's,
Charles, Calvert, Anne Arundel, Prince
George's, Montgomery, Harford, Carroll, Bal-
timore county, Baltimore city, and Howard."
Here is another resolution passed on the
19th of June, 1861.
' ' Besolved by the general assembly of Ma-
ryland, That the members and officers of the
senate and house of delegates be allowed for
this adjourned session, commencing on the
fourth day of June last, the per diem for the
time they have been in actual session, and
the sum of twenty dollars, as an increase to
' the mileage of each member and officer, ex-
cept the mileage due to officers appointed
from Frederick city, and the same be received
as full compensation for all demands for per
diem and mileage at this adjourned session."
Then comes the resolution of 1864. The
mileage we are to have is the mileage al-
lowed to the general assembly. What gen-
eral assembly? The Frederick general as-
• sembly, that passed the resolution of May,
1861? Or the assembly of 1864, that passed
the convention bill? The gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge) goes back
to the law regulating the mileage. The con-
vention bill does not say a word about the
law. It is not "the mileage allowed by
law." That is a very different sort of thing.
If it was "the mileage allowed by law,"
then the question of what was the mileage
allowed by law would come up. But that
is not the thing here. It is ' 'the mileage
allowed to the general assembly." Which
general assembly? That is the whole ques-
tion involved. Which general assembly did
they mean? If you do not go to the general
assembly that made this law, which general
assembly shall you goto? One of the two
whose resolutions I have read, or some other ?
1 say, therefore, that this law is to have
just exactly the same force as if it bad given
the number of dollars, and had expressly |
