inconveniences, for which mileage makes
compensation. Members from the lower
counties have not the. same facilities of travel
with those in Baltimore city, or those who
are immediately contiguous to their homes
who can see their families frequently, and
can attend to other business which would be
necessarily neglected by those who come
from other portions of the State, I think we
should not restrict the Legislature from giv-
ing something in the nature of mileage, even
though we limit them to avoid imposition
upon the treasury of the State.
Mr. SCHLEY. In the 28th section of this
article, as reported by the committee, there is
a provision made for a per diem of $5 as
contemplated by the amendment moved by
my friend from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridge-
ly.) If the question of the mileage allowed
by law be an objection, when we come to the
consideration of the 28th section, that also
will be dispose I of then. In other respects
I prefer, with the gentleman from St. Mary's
(Mr. Dent) the report of the committee in the
6th section to any of the amendments pro-
posed. The object of the gentleman from
Baltimore county is to obtain certainty that
the sessions shall not be too greatly extended ;
but I think it works inequality in many re-
spects. There are times when the public ex-
igency will require along session of the Legis-
lature; and I am not in favor of asking any
public servant, in any capacity, to do his
duty without proper remuneration. It was
contemplated by the committee in making
this report, that there would be a necessity
for a prolonged session of the Legislature at
their first meeting after the adoption of this
Constitution. I think it would be very un-
fair to require a prolonged session, and to re-
quire them to performed all the work of that
prolonged session for at fixed stipend; when
other subsequent Legislatures which will not
have this labor to perform, or this responsi-
bility to incur, but whose duties may prop-
erly be discharged in a few days, will re-
ceive an equal remuneration for their services.
Again, sir, so far as public economy is con-
cerned, I believe it will hear the test of de-
monstration, than the public economy is sub-
served by the section as reported; that it
will actually cost the State less for the ses-
sions of the Legislature than if we adopt the
amendment, These are a few general rea-
sons why I shall oppose the amendment, and
support the section as reported. Others may
be suggested. I do not care to dwell on
them. It is a fact, never the less, that if a
fixed remuneration or salary be attached to
this office, there will always be found some,
and perhaps influential members of the Legis-
lature, who will be disposed to hurry through
the public business and will not be so much
impressed with the importance of mature
consideration, as per diem members would be.
Mr. DANIEL, This amendment does not |
propose to give members of the Legislature
a salary. It proposes to give them five dol-
lars a day for the actual number of days
they shall sit. But their compensation in no
case is to exceed four hundred dollars for the
term of the delegate.
Mr. SCHLEY. If the gentleman chooses to
be critical about words, I will say that there
is a limited salary, which may be insufficient.
A compensation or per diem is already pro-
vided in the report. But I objected to unlim-
ited sessions, and I object to them now—ex-
cept in the case of the first session after the
adoption of this Constitution. In the case of
the first session, I am willing that the session
shall ie unlimited, because I cannot foresee
what the public necessity for legislation will
be. I shall oppose the amendment, and sup-
port the report of the committee
Mr. BRISCOE. I shall vote against the pro-
position of the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely) at this stage of the
consideration of this question, because I
think the settlement of the question of com-
pensation more appropriately comes in, as
has been indicated by the chairman of the
Legislative Committee (Mr. Schley,) under
the twenty-eighth article. I am in favor of
the general proposition for the limitation of
the sessions of the Legislature of this State.
I am perfectly prepared to vote for this sec-
tion as it now stands; and then meet here-
after the question that is covered by the pro-
position of the gentleman from Baltimore
county. I think that this subject of the
limitation of the sessions of the Legislature
was introduced by the framers of the Consti-
tution, with a view to economy. Now, I am
willing to vote for a proposition looking to
the question of economy, if it can present
the matter as fairly as it is now covered by
the law; but not otherwise.
The question was upon the amendment
submitted by Mr. RIDGELY.
Upon this question Mr. RIDGELY called for
the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question being then taken, by yeas
and nays, it resulted—yeas 40, nays 24—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Bond,
Brooks, Carter, Chambers, Cunningham,
Daniel, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins,
Hopper, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer,
Larsh, McComas, Miller, Mullikin, Murray,
Noble, Parker, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely,
Sands, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of Dorches-
ter, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes, Thomas,
Todd, Wickard, Wilmer— 40.
Nays— Messrs. Baker, Briscoe, Brown,
Clarke, Cushing, Davis, of Washington, Del-
linger, Dent, Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Gallo-
way, Hollyday, Lansdale, Mitchell, Morgan,
Nyman, Pugh, Russell, Schley, Smith, of
Carroll, Sneary, Swope, Wooden—24.
The amendment was accordingly adopted. |
