Case ID: ohio-app-2d_11/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. Carney, v. Brown, Lt. Governor, et al.
    (No. 8853
    Decided September 26, 1967.)
    
      Mr. Henry W. Echhart, for relator.
    
      Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Charles S. Lopeman and Mr. Julius J. Nemeth, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. The facts stated in the petition were admitted to be true by respondents’ answer.

Eelator, the Honorable Charles J. Carney, is a Senator in the Ohio General Assembly. He offered a proposed resolution (S. J. R. No. 25). The Senate Eules Committee did not order the printing of the proposed resolution. Delator then made a formal, written protest against the failure of the Senate Eules Committee to print the proposed resolution. Eelator asked the respondent John W. Brown, as President of the Senate, to enter his protest upon the Senate Journal, pursuant to Section 10, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. The request was denied. Upon appeal to the floor of the Senate, the denial was upheld.

Section 10, Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides:

“Any member of either House shall have the right to protest against any act, or resolution thereof; and such protest, and the reasons therefor, shall, without alteration, commitment, or delay, be entered upon the journal.”

The applicable portion is that referring to “any act.” The protest involved here is one against the failure of the Senate Bules Committee to order printing. (The respondents’ brief erroneously assumes that the issue in this case is a protest against the ruling of the President of the Senate.)

The phrase “any act” necessarily refers to either an act of a member or an act of the House. In our opinion, the proper interpretation is an act of the House. Since the protest here concerned only the failure of a committee of the Senate to make an order, relator was not entitled to the benefit of Section 10, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.

Judgment will be granted the respondents and the petition dismissed.

Judgment for respondents.

Dueeey, P. J., Troop and HeReebt, JJ., concur.