Legislature may adopt rules to provide
against this difficulty; and the rules prepared
by the Legislature do attempt to provide
against it. But this body may be more im-
partial, not having private influences acting
upon them, and may make the appeal to the
selfishness of members to stop their pay.
There is no other way that I know of, to re-
serve to them the right to continue their ses-
sions if the necessity and importance of the
public business requires it.
Mr. BOND. I am in favor of some modifi-
cation of this article we are now considering.
I have observed the Legislature, for I have
been much in Annapolis during the sessions,
and I am satisfied that some modification of
this section, by which members will be in-
duced to go to work a little earlier in the
session than they ordinarily do, is required.
I have no doubt that every gentleman desires
to subserve the public good with the smallest
expense to the public. I am not particular
whether the proposition of the gentleman
from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) to pay
a certain sum, is adopted, or the proposition
of my friend from Baltimore city (Mr. Stock-
bridge) limiting the introduction of new
business to some certain point a short time
before the close of the session. But incon-
sidering this subject it strikes me that I should
rather favor the proposition of the gentleman
from Baltimore county. That would give us
eighty days legislation, and pay the members
$5 per day. Eighty days is a larger period
than that to which the session is limited by
the Constitution now existing. I believe
some period ought to be fixed beyond which
new business should not be introduced I
know very well that a few members, gen-
erally working men of the House, have been
able to prepare nearly all the business before
the requisite time. But there are a great
many gentlemen not industrious enough to
go to work in the early part of the session.
As my friend from Baltimore city (Mr. Stir-
ling) says, it is a principle of the human
heart to procrastinate, to put off that which
can be done at a future day.
I therefore think that some modification of
this section ought to be made, and I am in-
different whether it be the proposition to
limit the time of the introduction of new
business, or the proposition to pay members
a certain gross sum.
I will remark in reference to the proposi-
tion of the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stockbridge) that I think the time is
too long, from the 20th of February until the
end of March, It strikes me that if there is
no business to be acted on by the Legislature
between the 20th of February and the last of
March, except what has been before intro-
duced, they will have too much time. I
would therefore suggest that the limit of the
introduction of new business be the 1st of
March. |
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Will the gentleman al-
low me to say that my amendment does not
limit the session to the last of March, The
Legislature may adjourn as soon as the busi-
ness is done.
Mr. BOND. The amendment to the amend-
ment proposes the limit of the 1st of May.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. They may adjourn as
much earlier as they see fit.
Mr. BOND. They will sit until the 1st of
May always; and the time is too long al-
ready. The sessions now, closing in the
early part of March, cost the State $60,000, if
I am rightly informed; and if they sit until
the 1st of May it will double the expense;
so that so far as economy is concerned you
may as well have a session in each year
closing by the loth of March,
The PRESIDENT. The sessions closing on
the 10th of March have cost the State about
$75,000; and the last session overran that
amount.
Mr. BOND. And that would be very nearly
doubled, I think, by continuing the session
to the 1st of May. I shall vote against that
for the reason I have named, that I think the
time is too long, and I do not think the State
ought to be subjected to the expense. I shall
favor the amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore city, and a limitation upon the
time of introducing new business.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It strikes me that if the
proposition of the venerable gentleman from
Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) is to be
adopted, this question is settled by adopting
his proposition. Undoubtedly if a salary is
to be given to members of the Legislature,
we ought to impose no restriction upon the
session. That seems to be a necessary con-
sequence. It would seem therefore that we
are precipitately acting upon the subject of
limiting the session. And I would suggest
the propriety of passing over the preliminary
questions to determine at once whether the
member of the Legislature is to be a salaried
officer or a per diem officer. If be is a per
diem officer, the State has an interest in
shortening the session. If he is a salaried
officer, let him have whatever time he pleases
within which to spend his salary. I would
suggest therefore that the propositions before
us be withdrawn to enable us to decide upon
that offered by the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely.)
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE withdrew his amendment
temporarily.
Mr. RIDGELY. Several objections have
been suggested to me to the amendment which
I read, and in my judgment, with some force
in them. Perhaps the strongest one is that
if the members of the Legislature are made
salaried officers, to receive $400 a year,
there might be a possibility of their coming
here and spending twenty or thirty days,
taking the $400, and going away, neglecting
the public business. To meet that and some |
