Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-07

Tue present, passed by, the article ARRANGING
senatorial DISTRICTS at the suggestion of Mr. Townes
Tho 5th article being read, Mr.. Leigh of Chester
neid' moved to amend by inserting after the word
PROVIDED that, clause, excluding all persons hold
ing lucrative offices from seats in the Legislature
ana the amendment adopted.
| MI Leigh moved to amend the 5th article Lv ro
strictlng eligibility to seats in the Leuslnture Z,
treehoIders-urging that there was no incompoti
oii.!y between this restriction, and any extension
suffrage that might he agreed upon-and tho amend
uaent was agreed to.
The 9th section being read, Mr.. Chapman mover
TO strike out the words Either House NAV adjourn
'tseH respectively. and to insert .Ne;ther Hous,
shnli during tho session of the Legislatures witbon
the consent ofthe other adjourn itself for more tina,
three days. nor to any other place than the one a,
| whieh they are sitting In support of this amend
nent. Mr. Chapman stated the practice of the
Senate to adjourn for length of time and that orea,
luconvenionce resulted from it. Another reason was
that by the provision it STOOD one House MIGHT
SIT Mt one place. and the other at another-or one
might adjourn finally, and leave he other in session
lie thought this highly inexpcd dent and that If
ought to be provided sgainst.
Alr Leigh of Chesterfield. said that the provision
as 1t stood was part Of the old Constitution-t,at
there had always b"en good correspondence be-
tween the two Houses-and that tho power of nro
rogation ought to be vested somewhere and ne could
conceive circumstances which would render the en-
ercise OF such power highly salutary aud impor-
tant.-
Mr.. Nicholas did not conceive the mower in ouos.
ton OF one aouse adiourning itself without the con-
sent OF the other, as properly a propagation. That
was exercised upon tue whole Iepislature and Inv an
independent authority. He had long been of opin-
ION that the provision of the gentleman from Giles
MIR Cbapman) was necessary-for besides the re-
tardng OF public business by the habit Of the Sena
to take recess, it placed in the power of either
house by the privilege of adourning ITSELF to defeat
the most important sure
Ar Leigh said that the Senate or the House of
Delegates had 1t In their power to reject any mea
sure, and thus of defeating IT, without resortng to
lint no ~
complete answer to that objection as to the power
of prorogation-it required tw" houses to make
Legislature; and If either adjourned ITSELF it was o.
qruvalent to propagation. No case had occurred In
our history, whore it had been expedient to exercise
this power, but Mr. L. stated case where its eyer
else might be eSpedient and valuable. He contro-
verified the idea that the habit ofthe Senate adjourn
IN the early part of the session. had ever retarded the
public business. the loss of time being more than
made up by the greater despatch with which the Sc
nate did business from its small numbers, &c.
Mr. Nicholas briefly replied to Nr. Leigh.
Mr. farewell said that this power had existed for
81 yeaTs-no inconvenience had resulted from it, but
on the contrary much convenience, ind ryhy should
1t be changed? But this not all. 'Fhe Senate
10 made the court OF impeachment and if this power
vas not given, the House of Delegates might be
compelled to remain in session, until the Senate had
finished the impeachments. Where was the reason
for TINS: There was now greater necessity for eli
Their House to adjourn itself than formerly
Mr. Chapman in reply to the idea that no evil had
occurred from the power, said that it ought to be
sufficient nducement to make the change he propos-
ed that it might prevent future evil But he alled
cd that in fact, evil had occurred-and that but for
the recess of the Senac,a Governor and Councillors
would have been elected before this time and the
public business expedited. Delays annually occur
red from thus cause to the public Inconvenience and
dissatisfaction. AIr. Chapman adverted to the words
OF his amendment, which provided that Nth s con.
sent of the other, either house might adjourn, and
thus obvated the objection made by the gentleman
from Norfolk Mr. Tazewell.)
Mr SofA ftsyo lie hal
from the power of either house adjourning tseif-the
one the delay caused by temporary dlournment-the
other the serious evil of either house adjourn.
ing itself permanently, without the consent of the
other. in reply TO tho FIRST he said he had been for
some time a member of the Senate and as bad been
stated, that body in the habit, having nothing to
do, of taking furtnights holydav III the beginning
of the session. He knew that dissatisfaction had
existed from this cause, but he denied that there was
the least for it, that it had ever in fact de-
layed the public business. Members of the House of
Delegates disposed to themselves to the
people for long session, by transferring the blame
to the Senate. AS TO the evil apprehended from
permanent adjournment, MIR. j. argued to prove that
the apprehension was imaginary.
Mr.. CoalteI reflected upon the lopg SESSIONS Of
the Legislature, which, he SAID, had mad as much
effect as the odtous Judiciary in calling the Conven-
ton. Fhe blame thrown by one House upon
the other, and the people to remedy the grievance
had called us together. 70 take away the apology
afforded by the annual temporary adjournment of
the Scnate,he should vote for the amendment.
Mr.. Giles believed hat there was some reason for
the complaint of the Senates annually odjourning,
and that it originated from tho Senate's having no
power to originate bills. and thus leaving them fire.
qucntly nothing to do. Greatly attached TO the
old constitutions he yet was in favor of giving the
Senate this power in all cases, except money bills,
when the cause which produced their temporary I'D
JourDuent would be Withdrawn Mr.. Giles express
ed the opinion, in reply to the argument of Mr. Taze-
well, that the House ofDelcgntes being tho prose
cutors, must remain in session during the trial oil
! irppeachnents.
! MIR. Randolph said he should vote against the
nendment upon principle that had always govern
cd him. that it uDwise to disturb any thing AT
rest, and from which no practical mischief flow
ed He should vote against it another ground
Whatever opinion there might be of the safety found
/ in a multitude of Coun sellors he believed there was
but opinion the evil of multiplicity OF laws
he would do nothing to expedite their increase. He
believed that more to be apprehended to free
principles from over legslation-frcm the armies
of Legislators aud Judges-tian from all other eau
ses united. There at this time, besides the