Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-12-30
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER:
THE DIssENsIoN IN OHIO.

Tic very erroneous impressions as TO the difhctu-
ties which prevented an earlier organization of
that body. AS the readiest way of efacing the
erroneous impression which that article is. calcu-
lated TO make, we think it due 10 the Wings Of
Ohio to place before our readers the following salts
factory exposition of those difficulties, which we
find in the Ohio State Journal OF the 2lst instant
This exposition shows very clearly that the Wings
Of the Ohio Legislature are right in this unfortu-
nate controversy, and deserve all honor for their
moderate, law-abiding course, and their nfexbility
in maintaining the supremacy OF the laws.
THE TRUE STATE OF THE CASE
In saying what propose say touching the pending diff
Equities the House Of Representatives. must take for grant
ed that the members elect have assembled in the Representa-
tive Hail. the and under the circumstances established
usage for the purpose good faith of the usual oganiza
on preparatory entering upon the transaction Of the public
business must take for granted that neither Of the political
parties into which these members divided could seek
desire any advantage the other prior possession of
the Hail. or in any other way say take these things
for granted because every consideration connected with the
perfect equality of the parties the character Of the State the
trust representative and the sacredness Of constitutional
rights and duties resunes that these things are So Any
other supposon would imply character Of disorder if not
OF violence The representative body unupposabe in fact
as every one allow to be nadmissbe in theory.
Two Of claimants then, the process Of organization
Of the House Of Representatives. present themselves stimuli
aneous, the call Of Hamilton county, the first district
Of il, each claiming, upon credentials exhibited by them
spectvely the pria rghto seats. The set (Pugh
and Perce) present certificate of the clerk of the Court Of
Common Pleas, importing that they have been consuonaly
elected representatives from Hamilton county. The her
Spencer and Runyan pesen. copy Of the abstract rotes
certified by the clerk and signed by himself and two justices
Of the peace, the general election law requires showing
that they duly elected representatives from the first district
of Hamilton county
Now the presented by this of facts is believe,
entirely unprecedented IN the history of this State. is
of conflicting credentials and the first thought that
my mind in regard to it that for the purpose of
abng the House organize prevent injurious delay in
the transaction Of the public business the question Of right
between the conflicting claimants should be postponed until
such organization shall be perfected The correctness of this
thought made clear by the fact that until such organization
be perfected there is tribunal authority in existence by
which the question of right be decided and the const
tuition would clearly direct such course the pro-
vision has made giving each House Of Assembly the
elusive power of deciding upon the and qualifications
O! its members To stop discuss the question Of right
during the process OF organization, would be evade the
constitution by apparently suppong that there other
method of deciding the question than that which the consu
Ton has pointed out. For Why discuss unless with
decision
But in the before US the course suggested has not
been taken and those who discuss the forced by
necessity though the present position OF the House
relation were the proper one for its discussion
proceed so 10 discuss il here.
The state OF facts then presents two general questions
First Has either Of the sets of claimants The prina ace
right and, second If so, which
/. The first of these questions intend referring excu
svey the constuonaty the law under which both of
the conflicting parties claim alike to have been elected
Now, the law be unconsona neither Of the parties has
any right prim1 face oherw Use il, the contrary
rieayly Of ia. parties
the the exclusion Of the other II cannot belong 10
ooth But how shall be ascerained whether the law be
unconstitutional or not Who shall decide that question
Clearly the House Of Representatives (duy orpanized
der the provision Of the constitution already referred TO- pro-
ydDg that each House shall decide upon the returns and
guahcacns Of Its members UNTIL however, such decision
shall be made against the consutionay OF the law by an
organized House, must be presumed to be constitutional for
the most obvious The law was duly enacted by the
lawmakng power Of the Government, was signed BY the
Speakers Of the branches Of the Legislature and has in
other respects, all the requisite forms make law Of at
least Praa face obligation upon the parties and TO say that
law 20 enacted may be treated Unconstitutional or not
by any individual department Of the Government not
specifically authorized by the constitution 10 declare il So
would be to destroy the Government Any other view tban
TINS would necessarily lead 10 anarchy The Office Of the
hangman would be but nominal affair the murderer might
bid hm take the halter of his neck the ground that the
cuP had decided the law under which he received his sem
tence 10 be unconstitutional To be sure the hangman and
as posse would be quite strong for this Judge upon the
gaiows butt must be remembered that upon ques-
lion, not Of physical power but Of strict constitutional right
less completely illustrates the principle.
ne question, then, OF the constuonaty OF the law has
maintain nothing TO do with the Of these conflicting
claimants during the process Of organising the House; and
shall therefore assume for all the purposes Of this discus
on that the law under which they respectively claim have
been elected is, in all respects constitutional and binding
law and hence, that far the validity OF this law is con-
cerned Of these Of claimants has pra cie right
70 seats.
?. The second question is, 10 which Of the claiming per.
does this right belong And this is simply question
Of credentials. Pugh and Pierce present the certificate Of
the clerk; Spencer and Runyan present certified copy Of
the abstract Of rotes.
Now, the general election law contains FIVE provisions con-
nected with this subject viz:
/. That the sixth day after the election the clerk with
tuo justices Of the peace shall open the and make
abstracts Of the votes.
2. That the abstracts shall be certified and signed nv tie
clerk and justices and deposited in the clerks Office and
copy thereof certified aforesaid shall be Immediately for
varded TO the Secretary Of State.
g. That the clerk and Justices shall declare the persons
having the highest number Of for or Repre-
sentaiives TO be duly elected. ...s
q. That The clerk shall give certificate OF election TO the
person entitled TO Il on demand
O. That any person chooses contest the validity Of an
election, the right Of any person TO puLY
ILtcTEp, such person shall give notice thereof n writing
the person whose election he intends contest bn tCeny
days after tie election, DC.
The hist OF these provisions strictly complied
with the having been duly opened abstracts Of
duly made, certified and signed by the clerk and two
Justices ard copy, duly certified forwarded to the Secre-
- -