Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1880-02-19
Opinions on Biennial Sessions.

Opinions on Biennial Sessions.
| All the States of the Union hol,
biennial sessions of the Legislature
with the exception ofLouisiana, Main
Massachusetts,, New Jersey, New Y orl
Rhode Island, South Carolina ant
Wisconsin. 1t is highly probabl,
that Massachusetts, will adopt the hi
ennial plan at once. Wisconsin diff
fers in no material respect from al
the other States, and no reason ha,
Teen given why the annual session.
should be continued. They have
been abandoned by vast majority Of
| the States, and in not one of them
has there been thought Of return
to the annual plan. This, as stated
the other day, ought to be sufficient
to decide the matter in favor of a
constitutional amendment, unless il
can be shown there is special reas.
on why Wisconsin should reject the
experience of other States. The
question has been agitated for sever
al years and the people claim the
right to express their views on the
subject. The present Legislature is
asked to adopt resolution providing
for the necessary constitutional
amendment to be submitted to vote
of the people, and the views of IN.
dividual members ought not TO stand
in the way. 1t is not altogether
whether the members believe In an.
nual sessions since petitions have
flooded the Legislature for several
years, but whether the people want
the amendment, it appears to be the
plainest duty to give them an oppor.
tunity to express themselves.
The money matter is the least i'm.
portant. Whether 1t costs more or
whether it costs less for biennial than
for annual sessions, is not of great
moment in view of other questions
involved. To dismiss this part of
the subject, however, the fact may
be stated that the cost of biennial
session will not be greater than,
and we believe not as great as two
annual sessions. Aside from the ex.
pense of lighting and heating the
capitol, the expense of the legislative
session for the past four years has
been-for 1875, 100000 (; for 1876,
about $4,000; for 1877, about
100000; and fer 1878, over 1920.
600. 1t can be said that a biennial
session in Illinois costs fully double. or
more than double these figures but
it can also be said that every annual
session in Massachusetts costs over
$300,039--or three times the cost of
an annual session in Wisconsin.
There is no reason why biennial
session should be day longer or
dollar more expensive than an annual
session. If the reader will take the
trouble to go over the proceedings of
the Legislature for two years, he will
find that each session is taken up BY
pretty much the same n alters. The
medical bill of one session is the
medical bill of the next; sq,,with the
Fsg5Hsa BIZ shs ss 1T, ss
rate of interest, to amend the statutes
in various particulars. There are
not half dozen measures at any
one session that are really new--none
of the measures which prolong the
sessions are new. 1t is just as easy
to dispose of these matters for two
years as for one year and it need
take no longer to do it. Therefore,
there is no reason why the biennial
session should cost a dollar more
than the annual session. If the ques.
ton of money comes in, the advo-
Gates of the biennial plan can reason
ably hope to save the State huud.
red thousand dollars year.
The senator who represents Madi.
son is, of course, opposed to the pro-
posed change-it would hurt Madi.
son. In his remarks the other day
he claimed to be able. to show, by
the experience of other States, that
biennial sessions were unsatisfactory.
To assist him somewhat, these facts
are noted In q recent conversation,
Gov. Cullum, OF Illinois, said that he
did not believe the people of that
State would ever consent to change
that would require annual sessions of
the Legislature. Gov. Williams, of
Indiana, remarked that he was quite
strongly Of the opinion that it was
for the advantage of the people not
to have the Legislature meeting more
than once in two years. The change
from annual to biennial sessions was
made in Iowa in 1858. The Sena-
tors hold office four years, and the
Representatives two, aud Gov. Gear
of that State says: sit works well,
notwithstanding our rapid increase
in population, and consequent neces.
sity Of changing laws to meet the in.
creased growth. There has never
been move to change back to the
annual system in the last twenty
years. There is less legislation, less
expense, less work to do over again
in reEedying bad legislation, fewer
errors and less complaints from the
people," Gov. Pillsbury, of MINNIE.
sofa, who has had large experience
in public affairs, claims the credit OF
the constitutional amendment in that
State, which limits the legislature to
biennial sessions of sixty days length.
He says "the plan was adopted for
the sake of economy, and in the hope
of lessening legislation. The saving
of money alone amounts to more than
one-fourth the expenses of the State
government. Every other year $780,
600 is saved in the direct expenses OF
the session, and $4,000 more in
printing and incidentals. Beside this,
all interests and al needs of the State
are as well met by biennial sessions
as they were by annual sessions. "
The new constitution of Pennsylyan-
ia went into operation 10 1873. 1t
increased the number Of Senators and
Representatives,, and provided for
the annual sessions of the Legisls lure
until 1878, so that trial of biennial
sessions was hardly commenced.
But Gov. Hoyt saysssit is my decided
opinion that our people do not need
the services of the Legislature often