vorite measure. Thus the Legislature may
occupy months afterwards.
I think the true plan is to adopt the prin-
ciple which the last Constitution adopted, and
to enlarge the time if three days is not suffi-
cient. The Congress of the United States
are in the same fix. They have their rules,
which are suspended at the termination of
every session for such a purpose and such
another purpose, until the suspension becomes
the rule, and the refusal to extend becomes
the exception; and the rule amounts to noth-
ing. Three days is not sufficient. I would
suggest, therefore, that the expedient course,
in my humble judgment, would be to extend
the limit to ten days, at the termination of
the session, as suggested by the gentleman
from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller,) within
which new business should not be introduced.
How long the session shall last I do not
care, whether it be to the end of March, May,
June or July. That is a matter for the Con-
vention to decide. I should think that until
the last of March would be sufficient to do
all the business. I think if the Convention
adopt the course of prohibiting the introduc-
tion of new matter within the last ten days
of the session, although they will not per-
haps prevent the mischief, they will lessen
it as far as any plan which can be proposed,
Mr. PETER. I am very willing to accept
the gentleman's suggestion that no new bus-
iness shall be introduced within ten days be-
fore the close of the session of the Legisla-
ture; but by the amendment I think the
object will be accomplished. I do not think
that the Legislature would sit here with a
view of expending the public money. At the
same time I believe the Legislature should
have full and ample time to deliberate upon
all the matters before them. It was with
that view that I was willing to extend the
time to the 20th of May. I concluded that
by limiting the introduction of new business
to the 1st day of March, the sessions might
be brought to a close at an earlier day than
the 20th of May; and at the same time they
would have ample opportunity to discuss
and to deliberate upon all matters before the
body introduced up to the 1st day of March.
I think ample opportunity should be given
to all legislative bodies to discuss all ques-
tions and matters arising before them. For
this reason I have always been opposed to
calling the previous question. Legislative
bodies assemble not to be governed by the
wisdom of each individual man contained
within his own brain, but that they may in-
terchange ideas and thus may arrive at cor-
rect conclusions. I give them ample time,
from the 1st of March to the 20th of May, to
discuss all matters calmly and deliberately,
and arrive at such conclusions that they may
have no opportunity afterwards to screen
themselves by saying, these matters were
hurried through oar body without the op- |
portunity of examining into their effect or
bearing. Believing as I do that this is the
correct principle that ample time should be
given, and yet that some definite time should
be fixed when their sittings should come to
a close, I shall insist upon my amendment.
Mr. RIDGELY. I dissent entirely from the
proposition and the amendment. I agree
with my friend from Montgomery (Mr. Peter)
in his declaration that time should be given
to the Legislature to mature the public busi-
ness. I believe that we have a precedent in
the theory of the Congress of the United
States which is adapted to the exigency of
our State. I think we can adopt a system by
which all limitation may be taken from the
period of the session of the Legislature, pro-
vided you limit the compensation. The idea
seems to be general that it is this per diem
which is the cause calculated to lengthen the
session. I believe that idea, for the most
part, is well founded. If that influence be
withdrawn, there can be no objection to giv-
ing the Legislature unrestrained limit as to
time, the utmost opportunity for delibera-
tion.
So far as regards the idea suggested that
new business shall be limited to a certain
period of the session, I think that is liable to
a very serious objection; because it is possi-
ble that business of the utmost importance
might arise before the Legislature which
might be thrown over to the very last days
of the session. There appears to be a con-
trolling idea of fettering the Legislature. I
cannot see why a body coming directly from
the people at frequent intervals, immediately
accountable to the people, should be distrust-
ed, and there should be so many restraints
thrown around them. I hold that they ought
to have aliberal latitude of jurisdiction; and
that the great convenience of the people, in
the public business, requires that the Legis-
lature should be frequently and easily ap-
proached, and that they should have the op-
portunity of approach to the people at all
times.
I have prepared an amendment in accord-
ance with these views, which I will read. It
seems to me that it will better avoid the dis-
advantages of hasty legislation and promote
the convenience of the people; and that it
will impose such restraints upon the Legisla-
ture against too protracted sessions as would
probably meet the exigency. I propose,
when it shall be in order, to move to amend
by striking out the whole of the section ex-
cept the last sentence and to insert :
"The General Assembly shall sit so long
as in its judgment the public interest may
require; and each member therefor shall re-
ceive the annual compensation of $400 and
no more."
By that amendment I propose to leave the
sessions of the Legislature unrestrained as to
time, but limited as. to expense. The views |
