Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-02-17

-
M M4 RI oNDURANT moved to amend as fol-
lows: o,;c.b,e The
amount of circulation Of otter BANKS man n ~
of The Stale OF Virginia, OF notes OF less ina" -
. within The limits OF Virginia. ..
MIR. THOMPSON OF A. moved 10 lay .ne ~
, solution on the table; which motion was eai'
SMALL NOTE BILL.
The hill 10 auhorise the Banks 10 issue smali
notes being the order of The day ,.,
MIR. STANARD explained and supported 'ne
MIR. COX replied TO Mr.. Stanard in oPposi-
lion. and proposed substitute 10 inc oi1 anu"
ing The Banks 10 receive on deposne anu ~ "a!
ment of debts, the small notes OF me Dd9as "
o:her States but 10 send them nome ~ ie'e-'p
IVA nor further remarks BY Messrs. McMullen,
Gallaber and Wilcher, and before any question
va On ,a motion Of Mr.. NEWMAN, the Senate ad-
journed.
The hill entitled an act 10 establish system u
Zoo Schools in the county OF Essex, win Tue
amendments thereto proposed oy Inc oena.e, va
taken up. and the said amendments "e'e
The hill, entitled, an act 10 provide for The re-
!
rnent thereto proposed by the Senate, was TAKEN
m THE said amendment was read as loiio@s:
Before the commencing clause insert Inc ioi-
lowing section: - 80, an,;,,ed
san act 10 reduce Inc pay OF the members OF Inc
General Assembly after certain peIioa Oh 'ne
session, passed the 9th OF January 1914, s1ali oe
and the same is hereby suspended from ana amer
The report required by this acl shaii nave oecn
made to the Legislature"
Mr SOITTBALL considered this most e1-
rraordinary amendment The Constitution pro-
yides that all laws shall originate ~ Inc House OF
DELEGATES. and this was usurpalon oil power
on The part Of The Senate. Amendments should
be eernane 10 the bill. lie was opposed 10 The
repeal under any circumstances, but especially
in the manner proposed.
MIR. SCOTT said the principle had been long
since established, that the Senate had the right 10
strike out all alter The words DC II enacted, anu
insert any other words thought 10 be proper
This construction was adopted under The old
Constitution, and subsequently under The present
Constitution. The Senate has exercised this pow
cr continually and no good would result from
controversy between the Two Houses. Hisrepug-
nance 10 The STARVATION law" was such that he
would let no opportunity escape 10 strike blow
al ii. Il was disgrace 10 The statute hook. The
people regarded il as an act OF determination
on the part oil the Legislature. II was re-
proach 10 The State. The express object of the
bill was 10 shorten the session by reducing The
paw of The members after the expiration OF "A GER.
tain time. The great difficulty at all times at The
close OF The session, was 10 retain a sufficient
number of members for The transaction or pub.
lie business, and this difficulty was enhanced BY
the present law. This proposition has been twice
rejected this session, and now il comes before The
House in new FORM !, was germane TO Inc
law to which il was designed as an amendment.
The law provides for = revisai OF the criminal
code, which would require devotion of 4 much
greater portion Of The session than could be e1-
pected under existing circumstances
Mr.. COWAN thought The starvation Law
one Of The very best that ever passed this House.
Mr.. SOUTHALL said that he was mol the
peculiar patron OF the bill. There was large
majority OF the House in favor OF lis preservation
unon the Statute Book. The law had The effect OF
shortening the sessions, and the sum oil twenty
FIVE thousand dollars had annually been saved TO
The Treasury. The suspension OF the law pro-
posed by the Senate, was equivalent to repeal.
II The law were Objectionable, or reproach TO
the State, he would not approve OF its repeal in
the manner proposed. He would never sanction
The principle, that The Senate could strike on all
after the first words, and insert whatever their dis
erection might suggest. The Civil Code could not
be expected TO be prepared by the next session,
and should the Criminal Code be presented, the
law would not go into operation, according TO the
provisions Of the Constitution, al that session.
He considered The amendment unconstitutional
and ine1pedient.
Mr.. SCOTT preferred the plan adopted BY The
Senate, in preference 10 repeal OF The law. The
amendment of the Senate contemplated snsPsn-
sion by the neck for an indefinite time, al an indie
finite height, OF this odious monster. MIR. Scott
referred 10 the "mannal," prescribing The power OF
amendment, which declares that amendments
NAV be made SO as totally TO alter the bill"
Each House is 10 Judge for itself what amend
ment is proper.
Mr.. RICE had voted for The starvation Law"
and thought il salutary law The useless con-
sumption of time satisfied him OF the propriely OF
sustaining the law.
Mr.. LEE opposed the starvation law" on The
ground that il produced thin House al ihe Pc
Rod of the session when The most important onsl-
ness was under consideration.
MIR. LANIER agreed with The gentleman from
Fauquer on the question OF The power oil amend
ment by the Senate. There was no limitation in The
! Constitution 10 this power, but the House conld
determine whether il was expedient to concur
with the Senate. The only restriction imposed
was with reference to the originalion Of bills
He was opposed 10 the repeal OF The law.
/ Mir COWAN called for The previous question.
!
question, no chd's play, question Of power be-
tween The two Houses. There was danger ofhe
loss OF the bill by this illtimed attack upon the
powers ofthe Senate.
Mr.. LYONS hoped the previous question
would not be sustained. II was an odi1us gag
when thus applied. It would have The effect Of
preventing discussion upon question OF the Ut
most importance. The rejection of the amend
ment of the Senate might result in the defeat Of
l:t H. 49, 49,, ,oo -
Mr.. LEAKE said if this were a question of
power between the two Houses, there would be
some force in The objection 10 the call The
powers of The two Houses would not be affected
by The rejection oil the amendment
MIR. LYONS rose to a point oil order The
gentleman from Goochand had no rghito discuss
the merits of The question call for the previ-
Gus question.
Mr.. LEAkE said his remarks were intended
as an answer 10 The gentleman from the city OF
| Richmond.
MIR. BANKS wished TO give an explanation
Of his views on the question OF power and hoped
the call would be Withdrawn or voted down.
MIR. COWAN could not withdraw the CALL
because he believed all were satisfied with The
discussion
Mr.. STROTHER thought the call was not in
accordance with the spiri, of our institutions.
Mr.. PENDLETON hoped the call would be
WithdraWn, and an opportunity afforded 10 gentle
men TO explain their views
MIR. COWAN withdrew the call, and said he
was willing 10 listen 10 them as long as they were
disposed iospeak.
MI. LEE thought they should be careful not
10 create difference between the House and the
Senate, BY which the bill itself nigh, be defeated.
There could not be an amendment more germane
10 the law. 1t was absolutely necessary tba,
time should be afforded for the adoption of The
civil and criminal codes when revised.
Mr.. LAYNE had voted Tor The starvation law,
but believed that seveniy-fve days were mol suffi-
cent for the transaction Of the business Of the
Legislature. He proposed an amendment 10 The
amendment OF the Senate, SO that ninety days
might be substituted 10 the place OF Seventy
i've"
MIR. BROADUS thought the best plan was 10
disagree with the Senate and bring in the latter
amendmen, as an independent proposition. The
length Of the sessions of the Legislature was
cause Of jus, complaint throughout The Stale. A