near the democracy now, and in one respect
nearer than the gentleman from Kent (Mr.
Chambers.) I certainly object to the term
"aristocratic" as applied to the higher branch
of the Legislature. I do not think that when
a gentleman goes into that body—I have
never been there and cannot answer from
personal experience—he loses his democracy
there and becomes aristocratic. I prefer to
regard it as the conservative branch of the
democracy, the conservative representation of
the people.
Mr. MILLER. I think there is a great deal
of force in what has been said by the gentle-
man from Montgomery (Mr. Peter) and the
gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) with
regard to annual sessions and annual elec-
tions. I am in favor of annual elections and
annual sessions; but I understand that the
Convention has decided the question of an-
nual elections, and that the question now is
simply whether we shall have annual sessions
of the Legislature of the State. There is one
consideration which has occurred to me why
we ought to have annual sessions. We shall
elect a Governor probably for four years. I
am on the Executive Committee; and it is
with me a question whether I shall vote to
give him the veto power or not. That sub-
ject has been introduced and considered some-
what. It may occur that the Governor
elected for four years may be entirely opposed
to the wishes of the Legislature of the State in
regard to carrying out some very important
measures necessary to bepassed immediately.
If we give him the veto power under the
provisions of the Constitution, unless we hold
annual sessions, it would prevent such a
thing being passed. I want it within the
power of the Legislature to meet every year
independent of the call of the Governor; and
for that reason I shall vote for annual session",
I was in favor of and should much prefer an-
nual elections for the popular branch of the
Legislature, that whenever it meets it might
get fresh instructions from the people; but
although I cannot get them, I am still in fa-
vor of annual sessions,
Mr. THOMAS. There is another reason
which occurs to me, which was the main ob-
ject which induced me to offer this amend-
ment in relation to annual sessions. We do
not live in a time of peace. We live in the
midst of a convulsion, which brings forth
things to-day entirely unlooked for yesterday
We do not know how often the people may
require or want the Legislature to meet. The
Governor may refuse to call the Legislature
together. We must make provision to meet
all these things. If there is nothing for the
Legislature lo do, no business for them to
transact, they will adjourn as soon as they
please. The lime is limited for one of these
sessions to sixty days. I propose when we
come to that part of the article, to say that
after the Legislature has been in session a |
certain number of days they shall not receive
any pay, as they do in New York and other
States. I think in these times, when we do
not know what changes are to take place,
and what changes the people of Maryland
may have to make in their laws, on account
of the changes we have made in our organic
law, once a year is not too often for the
Legislature to meet. By another provision
proposed by the committee on future amend-
ments to the Constitution, if after a while the
people find that it is unnecessary for the
Legislature to meet annually, they can readi-
ly do away with it, and hold biennial sessions
if they choose.
The question being taken, the result was
yeas 17, nays 40—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs, Abbott, Audoun, Baker,
Bond, Brooks, Davis, of Washington, Dent,
Earle, Harwood, Hopper, Lansdale, Morgan
Scott, Sneary, Stockbridge, Sykes, Wickard
17
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Annan, Belt, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers,
Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Ecker,
Edelen, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hollyday,
Hopkins, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Larsh, Mc-
Comas, Miller, Mullikin, Murray, Noble,
Nyman, Parker, Peter, Pugh, Purnell,
Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley, Smith, of
Carroll, Stirling, Swope, Thomas, Todd,
Wooden—40.
Messrs. BELT, MILLER, and THOMAS, at first
voted ''aye," but subsequently changed their
votes for the purpose of moving a reconsid-
eration when there should be a fuller House.
So the amendment was rejected.
On motion of Mr. DANIEL,
The Convention adjourned.
FORTY-THIRD DAY.
FRIDAY, July 8,1864.
The Convention met at 10 o clock, A. M.
Prayer by the Rev, Mr. McNemar.
The roll was called and the following mem-
bers answered to their names :
Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott,
Annan, Audoun, Banker, Barron, Belt, Bond,
Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Carter, Chambers,
Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis,
of Washington, Dellinger, Dent, Earle, Eck-
er, Edelen, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Jones,
of Cecil, Keefer, Lansdale, Larsh, McComas,
Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Noble,
Nyman, Parker, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Ridge-
ly, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott,
Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester,
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes,
Thomas, Todd, Wickard. Wilmer, Wooden
—65.
The proceedings of yesterday were read
and approved. |
