The Placer herald., 1857-12-26
AUBURN, DECEMBER 26, 1857.
Biennial Sessions.

and the people But it is always better to
first ascertain whether that which is propos
ed as reformation, does really contain the
merit that is claimed for it. To all questions
proposed for public consideration, and in
which the general voice is called upon to
decide, this will apply; and a case in point
presents itself in the proposition to do away
with annual and resort to biennial sessions
of our State Legislature. This has been a
favorite project with many, by which the ex-
penses of the State are to be greatly reduc-
ed, and taxpayers relieved somewhat Of their
burthens. A favorite argument in support
of the measure, that we have too much leg
isation, that mankind is governed too much
for its real necessities, is true; but that ben-
nial sessions will relieve the people of Cali
fornia, we do not believe.
Those who conceive annual sessions are
necessity in this State, from the unsettled
condition of things, the comparatively un-
developed resources of the country, and the
emergencies that constantly arise for imme-
diate legislation, are willing to admit that in
the older members of the Confederacy bien-
NAL sessions might answer the public require
ments. But as a proof that they are not
adapted to the wants of either old or new
States, it is but necessary to cite the work
ings of the plan in the State of Ohio. In
that State, in the year 1850 a rev Constitu-
ton was formed. The spirit of retrench-
ment and reform operated so far in the de-
liberations of the Convention. that among
other improvements that of biennial sessions
was noted feature of the Instrument
How well it worked, and how far the people
of Ohio were satisfied with this one item of
reform, may be found in the fact that, in less
than two years there was strong expression
in favor of return to annna sessions. In
the sessions of 1866 the Legislature per-
cevng the necessity of legislation the fol-
lowing winter, adjourned at the close of their
labors, until the next year-lS56-7-thus,
from necessity, evading the law, and estab-
fishing precedent that will be in all proba-
bility adhered to.
The reasons for return to the old system.
were so apparent, that the Legislature, at its
adjourned session, submitted to the people,
among other amendments to the Constitu-
G., Il
ment faled-not because of formidable op-
position, but for the reason that a majority
of all the votes cast at the election were
necessary to secure its adoption: four readers
will remember that the Constitutional Con-
vention question was defeated in this State
last fall on precisely the same grounds.)-
The favor the proposition met with from the
people is seen in the vote given Whole
vote of the State, 232, 136. Necessary to
secure the adoption of the amendment,
10000. Annual Sessions,-yes, l5l, POP;
No, $1,000. Could stronger reason be
offered against the change proposed to be
made in this State, than the result of the
experience of the people in Ohio. For seven
years they have tried this much vaunted
system of retrenchment and reform, without
saving money to the State or deriving the
least benefit from it. They demand achange
and although voting for that change in the
ratio OF five to one, were thwarted in their
wish by an oversight in not having tickets
properly printed. Another year, doubtless,
the question will be carried by an overwhelm
ing majority.
We want no better evidence of the failure
of this scheme as measure of retrench-
ment, than the experience of the people of
Ohio. That illustration is sufficiently prac-
tical to cause other States to steer clear of
similar reforms for some time to come.
If reduction Of legislative expenses is
seriously contemplated by the press and peo-
pie of this State, there is mode of accom-
plishing the same that can easily be demon
strated as practical. Under the Constitution
of the State the number of members in the
Legislature cannot exceed at any time one
hundred and enty-eighty in the Assem-
bly,, and forty in the Senate. At the pres
ent time there are thrty-three Senators and
eighty Assemblymen-wthin seven Of the
number that could be elected if California
contained ten times more inhabitants than
at present.
Can good and sufficient reason be given
for so large representation at the present
time? We think not. The only motive that
seemed to urge the increase of representa-
tion by the Legislature of 1928, was desire
to make room for numerous political asp-
rants that swarmed in all the counties of