Morning journal and courier., 1884-09-26
RiennfaI Sessions,

SOCIETY.
 New Haven, Sept. %, 1884.
 Biennial Sessions.
 Henry B. Graves in the Hartford Post-l
 In your issue of March 18th, 1884, you published an article from my pen showing reasons why the legislature should adopt the then pending proposed amendment to our constitution, making the sessions of the General Assembly biennial, and refer the mat ter to the people for their action. Subsequent ly the legislature did by more than two thirds vote of both branches adopt the pro posed amendment, and passed an act that the question referred to should be voted upon by the electors of the State on the first Monday of October next (the 6th.)
 In that article used the following points of argument:
 F'Figures they say never lie. By the last census Ohio had population of 3, 197, 794, H.
 inois orr e71, Missouri 1O9, ,O91 Michigan d g51 1, ,694, ,096, Iowa 1 ,624, ,615, Texas ], ,502, ,574,
 Georgia 1, ,542, 180 Tennessee 1 ,542, ,463, Indi-
 ana ,97S, ,301, Mississippi 1 ,131 ,999, Louisia-
 na 94O, 900, California 864 694. Twelve States,
 all of them much larger than Connecticut, and
 yet the legislature to enact their laws meets only once in two years. By the census of 1850 Connecticut had a population of 622, 700. It
 
 and Illinois, with population of three mil lions and over in each State, can care for their interests with session of the legislature once in two years, we in Connecticut, with only about one-ffth of the population of ei- ther of those two States, could, in all reason, look after every interest in our State by the adoption of biennial amendment. The reasons in favor of this are: First. The permanency of law, that the people and the profession may have an op- portunity to know what the statute laws are before they are repealed or modified. Second. That the laws may remain long enough upon the statute book to obtain ju- dicial construction by our courts. | Third. It would be in favor of economy, | retrenchment and reform, and lessen the \ burdens upon the people in the way of taxa \ tion.
 ' the scuf1es and scrambles in the smaller towns of the State to get nominations and | elections to the legislature.
 \ Fifth Too much legislation is not well
 and healthy for any State. With our annual I sessions it is 8 great burden upon the lega
 profession to keep track of our statute laws
 It is a significant fact that no State in the
 Union that has adopted the biennial session of it's legislature has ever returned to the an nnal session It is also significant that in ] the States where the legislature only meets l once in two years complaint is made. Nc party claims pretends but what every in- \ terest is duly and properly cared for by it's ! legislature. This being so, why should we | in our small State be at the annual expense of the legislative debenture of $124, 900 and
 larger sum spent by the people in money
 and time in electing the legislature" I now propose to consider the objections I made against biennial sessions by those who are opposed to the adoption of the proposed ! amendment.
 It is said first-that frequent elections are f in the line of popular government. If this | is so why elect our President for a term of ! four years, and the members of the national Senate for the term of six years, and of Con gress for the term of two years? It is said next-that corporations have 1 great influence over our legislature, and if it meet but once in two years their power will { be increased, and in this connection that the lobbyist favors biennial sessions for the reason ! that he can put in his work at less cost to his l employers once in two years than annually. In reply to this argument, if argument it can be called: I reply to the first, that the great States of Ohio and Illinois are not without their great corporations of all classes, and in the matter of miles of railroad Illinois has nearly nine thousand miles and Ohio has nearly seven thousand miles, while in this State we have one thousand miles. If those large States can control and care for their inn mense number of miles of railroad by bien- nial sessions of their legislatures, why can- not we do the same in this State! Are we to sconfess that our citizens are not as intelligent and sagacious as the citizens of those Statess Must we admit that our legislators are more corrupt and susceptible to bribery than the legislators of those States! If we admit that the argument has force, we must acknowl- edge our lack of intelligence and our inferi- ority and humble ourselves by the confession that our legislators are more corrupt and more ready to be bribed than those of Hi nois and Ohio. Are we ready to do this? In regard to the matter of the lobbyist, I have yet to find one that is not opposed to the proposed amendment.
 I Is it not true that a member of the lobby can earn more money by annual sessions than | biennial sessions2 Would it not be true, if | the amendment should be adopted, that one l half of Othello's occupation would disap- | peara None know this better than the mem ! bers of the 1obby-hence their opposition. \ It is said next that the adoption of the amendment would obstruct rotation in office
 and tend more generally to keep the same | members of the House of Representatives in ! the legislature at successive sessions than un | der the annual system, or at any rate a greater | number of them, than under our present sys- | tenn.
 | Iwish could make myself believe this to be | true, for if that would be the result, it would \ afford very strong argument in favor of the | He@-ASANAAAOAAO"
 session of the House of Represe sentatives a few
 members control and shape the measures in | that body that meet with approval? Are they not always composed of those who have often figured on the floor of the House at previous
 sessions and by their experience fitted them selves es leaders?
 Formerly the southern States selected their
 best men to send to both branches of Congress
 and kept them there for successive terms. What was the resu1ts Simply that those States | controlled the legislation of Congress though l in minority. We all know, or ought to l know, that they were enabled to do this be- | cause their delegations were men of expert | ence in matters of legislation, and from that alone possessed the power to control the ma jority.
 l Is not intelligent legislation preferable to I any other2 If not, then we should adopt an ! amendment to our constitution making incl | igible every man who had once been mem Der of our legislature. Should this be done, I in my judgment the proceedings of our legis.
 lature would not only be curiosities but ! monstrosities.
 The people of the State understand this question much better than they did in 1879 and it is to be hoped for that that under kstanding is sufficiently entertained to result ! in the adoption of an amendment that is in every way in the interests 'tof the people and
 for the people"
 |