New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-06-21
BiENNIAL LEGTSLATITE SESSIONS.

One of the questions to which special
prominence should be given in the can
vass this year is that of biennial SESSIONS
of the Legislature. There is little reason
to doubt that if the people were allowed
to vote directly on the subject it would
be largely favored. But the men who make q
living out of politics, and WHO thrive in Albany
during legislative sessions, are opposed to this
reform. They have steadfastIy refused to
allow the question to be voted upon by the
people Under the lead of Mike" Murphy,
and assisted, strange to say, by Erastus
Brooks, the politicians secured a majority
against biennial sessions in the last Assembly.
The subject was referred TO committee and
smothered. The Democratic party has always
been hostile to this reform although the OPP
position has not come alone from Democrats.
The history of legislation in Albany on this
subject in recent years presents some curious
facts. In 1873 proposal to amend the COnsti-
tuition so as to provide for biennial sessions
was presented in the Assembly. Among the
firm advocates of the measure was Erastus
Brooks who said:
The piles OF bills upon tables the hundreds OF pages
Of documents, the physical mpOssbility TO read what
presented for consideration the nonstrous amount
OF special legislation which is introduced hardly less in
the part the session than In the first, have
yerted INC TO necessity of such resolution
thls. I am also believer in the maxim that the
world is governed good deal too much, and believe
that the people much more prosperous and happy
when the Legislature fails 10 meet
Yet Mr.. Brooks in the Assembly this year
oppOsed biennial sessions on the ground that
the change would be injurious to the interests
of the State, and that there Is no public demand
for il though with others he had succeeded in
having the resolution adopted in the Assembly
in 1873 by vote Of 70 to So II failed then
in the Senate The next year the Assembly
adopted the measure again, by vote Of 81 to
II, while in the same Senate that had pre-
viously defeated the bill only four votes were
recorded against it.
In 1880 the resolution came up for the nee
essary second approval before being submitted
to vote of the people. 1t passed in tho AS
sembly by vote of 70 to 20, the negative
votes being cast by Democrats. In the Senate,
however, the committee to which the measure
was referred, makins use of a common trick,
submitted no report upon it until the very last
day of the session; hence the resolution was
defeated. This failure, when the end was 80
nearly accomplished, had discouraging effect,
and the subject was not taken up In 1881. In
1882 the resolution was again introduced, and
passed in the House by vote OF 46 to 26; but
il was killed in the Senate again the last
day of the session. This year, by vote of 43
to AZ in the Assembly, the resolution was re-
ferred to committee and failed to reach the
Senate. 1t is clear that If the people desire this
reform they will have to elect representatives
pledged to carry it out.
Of the thirty-eight States only nx-Connec-
ticut, Massachusetts, New-Jersey, New-York,
Rhode Island and South Carolina-have Con-
situations requiring annual sessions. Biennial
sessions are provided for in thirty-two Consti-
tutions, but in Ohio and few other States
where annual sessions are not prohibited adj
jonrned sessions" practically amounting to an
nual meetings, are held. A resolution looking to
a change was considered favorably in the Mas
sachusetts Legislature this year. The last
New-Jersey Constitutional Convention re-