|
1
|
has to be a. constitutional limitation rather than just
|
|
2
|
a statutory limitation? I would visualize or I would
|
|
3
|
hope, as Mr. Hardwicke said, that this Constitution
|
|
4
|
would be drawn and would last for quite a long time,
|
|
5
|
that we're spending a lot of time on it now and that
|
|
6
|
it would be good for a number of years. Why could it
|
|
7
|
not be a statutory provision that could be modified
|
|
8
|
easily so with any change in the State makeup.
|
|
9
|
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean the length of the
|
|
10
|
sessions?
|
|
11
|
DELEGATE KIRCHER: Length of the session,
|
|
12
|
limitation as to number of days, rather than being a
|
|
13
|
specific constitutional provision. It would have to
|
|
14
|
go all the way through a constitutional amendment, say
|
|
15
|
10 or 15 years from now when possibly, as Mr. Hardwicke
|
|
16
|
pointed out, we may go into a different form of govern-
|
|
17
|
ment.
|
|
18
|
THE CHAIRMAN: If you were writing the
|
|
19
|
Constitution, how would you write this particular clause?
|
|
20
|
DELEGATE KIRCHER: That this would be pro-
|
|
21
|
vided by law, the same as the salaries.
|
