Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-06-16
the change ss proposed in this amend

| Mr.. Powers of Morristown liked to hear
this matter discussed, He did not fear
the great constitutional bugbear which
the gentleman from Montpelier presented
to our view. We are not abridging the
rights of the people by this amendment.
The great motive which should operate on
this question is economy. Let us see for
few years if this change is not beneficial,
and if we fail, we are mistaken, restore
annual sessions. Taking the expense OF
annual sessions, elections, and the time
consumed by them, he thought is cost
100000 year. There are also the poll.
| teal meetings and other machinery in.
separable from them. We have too much
| legislation, and this fact influences me
more than the saving of money. The
careless condition of laws and legislation
| is deplorable. "That government is best
which governs least" Those members
who have been familiar with our public
| institutions las the State PRISON. cannot
believe they will suffer under the change.
This "love feast" of legislature is mere
| nonsense.
Mr.. Olmstead of Dorset desired to give
the reasons that would govern him in his
vote He said he had failed to see some
things as others had protested to see
them He said it had been assumed that
a change to biennial sessions would be
productive of economy in the State, but
no one had presented the proof that such
change would produce economy. He
said the legislature could not be put into
working condition short of three weeks
time, and about SO much time must be
consumed in our legislative sessions. de
said he could not see the fact that the
change to biennial sessions will make a
saving of one half the expense to the
State, he bad seen no proof to satisfy him.
AS to the argument that the annual elec-
ton day was expensive to the people, he
thought we had something else to live for
besides the saving of few dollars in
money, or few days time. Other argu-
merts brought forward in favor of the
change, to his mind, were only specious
and without validity. The mere argu-
ment of saving of few dollars In
money, was nothing in his mind, in com.
parison with the higher consideration OF
the public good. Our laws are not so
difficult to understand, so much as that
the people when they go to the lawyers
for counsel do not present their case in
all its bearings, and when the counsel
comes to try the case he finds it altogether
different from what it had been represent
ed to him. In all the aspects of the case,
he could see no valid reason for the pro-
posed change, but preferred to continue
the present system.
Mr. Bittinger of Hartford, said he
thought the gentleman from Middlebary
had put this question just where the peo-
pie of Vermont would have it put and
all the specious pleading would not
change the fact. His constituents all
thought that we have too much legisla-
ton, and that if we had a session of the
legislature bnt once in two years there
would be but one-half the chance that we
now have. He referred to the different
circumstances under which the State of
Vermont is placed when compared with
the large States of Ohio land California
We are small State, with but few and
simple requirements, and he thought the
interests of the State could be better sub
served by the proposed change than to
continue the system of annual sessions. All
we can do, is to ask what do the people of
Vermont want He believed they de-
mand biennial sessions of the legislature,
and the easiest thing this convention can
Mr.. Dunton of Rutland came here with
out instructions, but was confident his
people desired biennial sessions, and he
sustained the amendment. Our state is
so small that we need little legislation
our interests are few-the people demand
economy hereby, and he expected short
sessions. Mr.. Walton's illusions to other
states are fallaoious, size and businonS
prP int
not to be compared with theirs. Let US
save the money now wasted in sessions to
be devoted to other ends developing our
interests.
Mr.. Parker of Wolcott moved that the
committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again, which was agreed to /;
and the leave asked was granted.
On motion of Mr.. Drake of Royalton,
adjourned.
AFTERNOON.
Mr. Francis of Wells, for the committe
on final adjournment, made the following
report:
TO tie Constitutional Conoent5on.
The committee appointed to recon-
mend time for the final adjournment of
the convention, respectfully report that
they have considered the subject referred
to them and recommend the adoption of
the following resolution:
Re80lUed, That this convention adjourn
without day on Monday, June 18th, at
s o'clock, a. N.
NATHAN FRANCIS,
For committee.
Mr.. Seymour of Vergennes moved that
the report of the committee be ordered to
lie.
Which was agreed to.
Mr.. Jones of Coventry offered the fol-
lowing resolution:
ReS0Zged, That those members who are
charged with long speeches be requested
to read them by their title only.
The chair ruled that the resolution was
out of order, and no action was taken on
it.
The convention having gone into COM
mittee of the whole to consider the second
article of amendment,
Mr.. Holbrook of Milton offered the fol-
lowing resolution
ReS0lUed, That the committee do now
rise and report to the convention, recon-
mending the adoption of the second arti-
Gle of the proposed amendment to the con-
stitution
Which was subsequently withdrawn,
the same being embraced in the resolu-
ton offered by the gentleman from Reads
boro.
Mr.. Hubbard of Rochester again favor
ed the amendment, and cited the change
that had taHen place in the press of the
State some papers which at first opposed
the change We're now hesitating at least
in their opposition to the measure. He
thought the argument that we were not
sure that the change would tend to de-
crease of expense amounted to nothing, as
we could only test these things by actual
trial He referred to the argument as to
the abridgement of personal rights, end
denied that we are under any obligation
to make provision that any man or class
Of men can hold the offices of the State
He was not an adherent to
ancestral tenets or usages, but thought
the people of the State not only acqui-
esced in but demanded the change To hi