Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1848-05-31

passage of the bill, and referred it to select
committee, notifying the Senate, by mes
sage, Of the fact the reconsideration be-
ling had s
Thus have we the concurrent evidences If
Z two political papers in Columbus, to. show
that the Journals of the House have been
falsifea, fer the purpose of shielding the
4 majority from the eensure of attempting to
palm off as a law a bill, the vote on the
passage of which had been reconsidered by
the House.
is other evidence wanted to. sustain. this
/ high charge. If so, itscan be found in the
ffact, that the Clerk Of the House of Repre-
sentatives, notified the Senate that such
:. Reconsideration had been had. Although
! this message, by astrange oversight,or by
q base sdesig @fo@a ssist IN the nutiIa ation,
does not appearih the Senate Journals, yet
unfortunately, these journals contain record
ed evidence, that such message had been
sent from the House, and that it was re-
ceived by the Senate: -.
By reference to the Senate Journal, of
Saturday, Feb. II, the following proceed
ings, (see page 545,) will be found.
: "Mr.T Bennett moved that the Senate, rec
consider its vote on House amendments to
S. No. 70. to fix and apportion the sTepre-
sentation, of the General Assembly of the
State of Ohio. 1859.
sMr.. Reemelin rose to question of orr
der; which he reduced to writing, as fol-
lows: = s..sss
"That a motion to reconsidera vote on an
amendment is*not in order, while the fact
as announced to the Senate that the House
had RECONSIDERED ITS VOTE
/ UPON THE OF THE BILL,
and has therefore withdrawn the very a.
merdments upon which it is purpossd to get
the Senate to reconsider; and while the bill
itself is not in possession of the Senate" .
Here the fact is placed upon the record, by
: question of order, that the House "had
officially announced its reconsideration of the
vote by which the apportionment bill passed
that body; yet the Senate journal contains
no record of the message that announces
the fact, and the House Journal gives no
record of such : reconsideration being had.
On the one side we ha:e the evidence of
The Reporters of both political parties, who,
in their daily reports, give the same fact,
land to support II; we have the evidence of
I Mr., Reemelin's question of order, which
eorroborates the same fact. On the other
hand, we have the negative evidence of the
journal, as made up by the Clerk Of the
House. Between this poSifsre and this
whethera charge of a Justification OF THE
I Legislative journals beswelt ltsustaiaea or sot:
I In making up their minds upon this sub
tject, it should be borne in mind that when
a motion to reconsider vote is made, and
! that motion is laid on the table, under the
rules of Parliamentary law, it carries the
bill with it! The House journal says, that
when "Mr. Anthony moved that the House
reconside. the vote by which it passed said
bill, on motion CT the same gentleman, said
motion was laid on the table," That mo-
ton carried the bill a0ath it from, the bill
that motion could not, under the rules of
Parliamentary law, be separated, and with
fill knowledge of the law on that subject,
we challenge contradiction from any source
or any quarter. With this fact in view, we
declare, without. hesitancy, that the report-
ed prooe .dings in the "Oio State Journal"
and the "Ohio Statesman" are correct, and
that to conceal the fact that reconsidera-
ton of the vote on the final passage Of: the
bill was had, the journals OF the House have
been Talsifed. Instead Of the words, "said
motion was laid on the table" it should ,aLd
we doubt not in the original, it did read,
"said motion acas agreed to. This fact
esta ablished, shows that the vote ON the pas
sage of the apportionment scheme was re-
considered, and that, on the day Of the adj
iournment Of the Legislature, had the cor
rect question been taken, the vote would
have been, sshall the bill pass?" In Par
liamentary law, it never passed, for recon
sideration of the vote on its passage, placed
the bill precisely in the condition it was
when read the third time. e,sa
These facts are sufficient to demonstrate
that the Journals of both Houses have been
changed and no longer represent the true
action of the Legislature. But we have in
our possession the fact, that a prominent
whig member Of the House admits that the
vote for reconsideration was carried, "but,
he says, "as question Of order was raised;
and on that question it was decided that the
House could not reconsider its vote upon the
pdSSdOC Ol lllC ullCA IsAS ~~SS A'~~
taken action upon the House amendments,
this vote was left out of the Journal as be-
ing out of ORDER" Here then is the admis-
sion that the Journals are false; and we
say doublyfalse, inasmuch as this question
of order, and the decision upon it, which,
on account of the subsequent action OF the
House, became vastly important, is also o.
mitted from the Journal.
We would gladly put the most charita-
bic construction upon this Justification Of the
journal, and therefore infer that the journal
was changed because the action of the House
upon the bill was out of order, inasmuch as
the Senate had taken subsequent action upon
the bill, which must also be reconsidered, In
order to give the House the right to recon-
slider its vote upon its final passage. But
let US apply the same rule to the subsequent
action OF the House, and then see how the
case will stand. Without any subsequent
Vote of the House on the passage oi the BILL
| it was again returned to the Senate with the
House amendments; and the Senate had a.
4