The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1848-09-29
Dcfcncc OF lIlc lsevolu,lonisls.

We come now to the consideration of
the third matter of defence set up 10y
those. who wish to revolulonize the State
Government. In this. is the most serious
charge brought against the action of the
majority of the Legislature, serious be-
cause it accuses them with crime of
which they are not guilty, as we shall
prove by their own testimony. And if
we prove the charge false, what w!llthe
individuals, who make it, not deserve!
This charge relates TO The
PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
We will premise here that irregularity
in the passage of law Goes not destroy
its validity. lfitis properly signed and
recorded, we do not conceive that dis
regard Of parliamentary rule, during its
passage. would render it null and void.
The Bill was first reported in the Sen
ate. 1t passed that body and went to the
House. During its passage DIR. OLDs
and his fourteen compeers remained in
their seats aud voted against it, In their
manifesto to the Senate, they say that. y
Ihey MouH remain during ats passage,
though Mey rOted against il, they ~0Nfd
be PARTICLES cRIMINIs, in the viOldtiOn O
/
the Constiiution, &c. This was after they
had retired from TIE Senate. We will
give them the benefit of what they say
They did remain, when the bill first pas
sed the Senate aud of course, if any vio.
lation was committed, they were parii-
ceps criminis in it. 1t will not do for an
excuse or palliation to say that the bill
came back to them again. Ofthis event
they had no cognizance.
In the House, tho bill passed with
some amendments. 1t went back to the
Senate-ihat body disagreed to the a
mendments-it came back to the House
that body insisted upon its amend
ments-it it again went to the Senate, ,whicl
agreed to TWO House amendments, bu
refused To concur in the others. The
bill was then again sent TO the Senate
and during the pendency of a motion t.
pass the bill with the amendments, .fflecJ
out of scUcnteen LocofocO Senators with
drew from the Hall, leaving the Senat
without a quorum.
This was the situation Of affairs, whe
the House, seeing no hope ofpassing tn
, bill, without receding from its amend
menls, upon motion did so. The bill ha
passed the Senate had passcdthe House
and receding from the amendments n
the latter body did. the bill only awate'
the signatures of the Speakers In becom
law. But say the Revoulonists, thi
: was an irregular mode of proceeding
True il was in this, that there was u
precedent for it--and whyl Simply he
cause no circumstances Of the kind ha
ever before happened 10 a Legis!a'iv
body. Hence the proceeding was un'
sual. But did il violate any establishe
/; parliamentary lawl The Revolulions
3 say that it did.-That according to Je
1 ferson's Manuel the House could not a,
b.. upon the bill. while it was in the Sena,
= We will examine il briefly.
) When the two Houses cannot comet
in some amendments to a bill, the usu
J. mode is to appoint committee OF col
IS ference. This undoubtedly would hay
been the case, in the present Instance, ,ht
rs not the minority defeated any such a
D. tion as that Had there been committ'
a oflho kind, upon theirreport, the Hou
J. would have receded from its amen
r.. ments; or the Senate would have acco
ed to them. The bill in such case, cou
1, not have been in both Houses, and y
C both might be called upon to act upC
l. the amendments. The House saved Il
t. necessity of u committee by reccding b
s fore one was appointed, and instead
violating rule, simply obvialed the n
% cossiry of the usual mode of procoedin
p But we care not for this. Even adm
y ting rule to be violated, it would not d
n. stroy the law And again, admitting
rule to he violated, whose fault was
i. Was it the Wings, who remained al
1t performed their duty, or the fifteen, wi
N transferred their siltings to a room in Il
American Ho,ell WaSi to such u plaC
$, the people had sent ,heml
II. In regard to the signing of the bill, {,
rs objection urged against it, is the mere
nonsense. Had not Mr.. Goddard sig
20 ed the bill, the Supreme Court could ha
lie made him do it; aud, what Mr.. Godda
,g would have been compelled to do, ho h
right to do.
ld But now we turn our attention to I
,n alteration of the Journal alleged by t
Il Revoluiionists. Our readers, we tru
ut have all read the address of the Comm
=. ,ao nn1 al n ,,n,l.,cotnnI mn ,v;,hrnt ra,