Morning journal and courier., 1883-03-14
BIENNIAL SESSIONS.

The country suserc from too much tegis- lation rather than from want of it. If the only cause of legislation were 8 real intent for the public welfare there would be far less of it than there is now. For years the State legislatures have been overwhelmed with @ host of measures which do not look at all to the public veal and ia which only private in terests are concerned. In some of the States for the very purpose of getting rid of this nuisance constitutional amendments have been adopted taking from their legislatures the power to pass any private acts. While these amendments have checked the evil to some extent, they are far from having sue ceeded in putting an end to it. The profes- sional lobbyist does not ask as rule for private acts He introduces general law, caring very little how it affects the public so long as it serves his purpose The statute books of the States, instead of consisting of laws harmonized and systematized into well digested jurisprudence adapted to the wants of the people, are miserable patchwork of acts passed for special emergencies, or more often for the benefit of special interests The result of this mode of legislation is that the civil law regulating the most important mat ters is continually in 8 state of great uncer- tainty which is of course fruitful in litiga- tion.
 A fe cling has grown up throughout the country that the people do not need as much of this kind of law making as they are get ting. Thirty-two out of thirty-eight of the States have provided by constitutional amendments that their legislatures shall meet only once in two years. If the legislature met less often it would be forced to give more of it's attention to legislation that is needed, and the lobby would not legislate quite as much as it does. Annual sessions give the Assemblies too much time to waste. It is as true of parliamentary bodies as it is of men that waste time runs to mischief If the sessions were less frequent we should have more time to find out what the needs of the people were and more time to discuss them. As it is we rush to legislation before we have fairly had time to consider the ob jects for which we legislate, and hence the multitude of crude, ill-digested and doubtful acts which make up the annual blue book. We do not have time to try the laws passed at one session, ascertain their defects or in terpret their antiquities before they are altered or repealed. Less frequent law-mak ing would tend to more intelligent and more thoughtful law-making.
 Not as much legislation is now needed in this State as there was years ago. A good part of the work of the Assembly used to be ehartering corporations All sorts of cor porations, including railroad companies, may now be formed under general laws. Now, if we have gained anything by these general laws, it seems ss though the Legislature ought not to meet as often as it does Gov erpment is business and should be run on business principles. We don't pay for work that we don't want in anything but politics We ought not to pay for the same number of days work if we need fewer days' work. That is just as good sense in legislation as it is in business. There is no more reason why we should pay statesmen than there is why we should pay factory operatives for services that we don't want. Is it seriously claimed that in Connecticut there is any greater need of annual sessions than in thirty two States, many of them three or four times as large, where the legislatures meet biennially? Is there really a crying necessity for annual sessions here2 If so, what is 1t Suppose that in any particular year, the present one for instance, the Assembly should fail to meet. Would the results of it be felt in the slightest degree2 Is it not entirely safe to say that so far as the legal needs of the State are concerned, so far from suffering. they would be great deal better off if the legislature met less often Of course it is unnecessary to say shat biennial sessions would save vast amount of useless ex- pense.
 But it will be argued that this measure has already been tried by the people and that their verdict is against it. It was not fully