The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1848-09-22

on the passage oflle Arportionment bill
was reroRsjdered, and The bill was recon-.
milied TO Messrs. Anthony, Warren and
Breck."
In the reported proceedings Of the
Ohio Statesman, Of the same day. we find
the reports of The State journal confirm.
ed, as true, by The following:
"Mr. Anthony moved that the House
reconsider its vote upon lhe passage
of Senate bill No. 20, to apportion the
representaiiouin the General Assembly
&c., which was agreed to; and M
The bill was then recommilted to a
select committee of three Messrs. An.
thony, Breck and Warren.
Ina legislative notice Of the proceed.
ings of the previous week published on
Monday. Feb. 14tb. we find the foIlow.
ing in the "Staiesman:"
"The Apportionment bill is now in the
Senate. Thatbody. some dayssince, dis.
agreed to the amendments made to the
bill in the House, and it was sent back.
The House reconsidered its vote on The
amendments, and then reconsdered its
vote on the passage of the bill, and re-.
terred ii toa select committee, notify
ing the Senate, by message Of the fact Of
the reconsideration being had"
Thus have we the concurrent evidence
of two political papers in Columbus, 10
show that The Journals ofthe House have
been falsiied, for the parposc Of shield
ing the majority from the censure of at.
tempting 10 palm of as law. bill, the
vote on the passage of which had been
reconsidered by Tie House.
Is other evidence wanted to snstan
this high chargel If so it can be found
in The fact, that the Clerk of the House
,of Representatives., notified The Senate
that such reconsideration had been had.
Although this message, by strange over.
sight, or by base design to assist in The
muniaiion, does not appear in the Senate
Journal7, yet unfortunately, these jour
mails contain recorded evidence, that such
message had been sent from the House,
and that it was received by the Senate
By reference 10 the Senate journal, oI
Saturday, Feb. ~, the following proceed.
ings, (see page 5lG,) will be found.
"Mr. Bennett moved that the Senate
reconsider itsvo'r on House amendments
to S. No. 70. TO fix and apporlion the
representation nf the General Assembly
ofthe State of Ohio.
"Mr Reemelin rose to a question of
order, which lie reduced to writing, as
follows:
THAT motion to reconsider v1te
on an amendment, is not in order. while
the fact IS announced 10 tie Senate thai
Tic House had REcoNsIDERED IT'S VOTE
UPON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL and has
therefore Withdrawn the very amend
ments upon which it is proposed to get
the Senate to reconsider, and while the
bill itself is not in possession Of the Sen
ate"
Here the fact is placed upon the record
by question of order. that the House
had officially announced its reconsidera.
ton of the vote, by which the apporlion.
ment bill passed that body; yet the Sen
ate Journal contains no record of the
message that ann"nnces the tact, and the
House Journal gives no record of such ;
reconsideration being had.
On the one side we have the evidence
of The Reporters of both political parties
who, in their daily reports give the same
fact, and TO support it, we have the evi-
dence ofMr. Reemelin's question of order
which corroborates the same fact: On
the other hand, we have the negative ev.
idence of the journal, as made up by the
Clerk of the House. Between this posi-
Gre and this negatire evidence, the peo,
pie must Judge whether charge of a
Justification ofthe Legislative journals be
well sustained or not.
In making up their minds upon this
subject, il should he borne in mind that
when a motion to reconsider a vote is
made, and that motion is laid on the
table, under the rules of Parliamentary
law, il carries the bill with ii! The
House journal says, that when "Mr An
thony moved that the House reconsider
the vote by which it passed said bill, on
motion of the same gentleman, said mo.
ton was laid on the table" That motion
carried tie bill 1ciH U-from the bill that
motion could not, under the rules of Par
liamentary law, be separated and with
full knowledge of the law on that sub
iect, we challenge contradiction from any
source or any quarter. With this fact
in view, we declare, without hesitancy
that the reported prnceedingsin the Ohio
State Journal" and the Ohio States
man" are correct, and that to conceal the
fact that reconsideration Of the vote on
the final passage of the bill was had, the
Journals ofthe House have been falsi6ed
Instead of the words, " said motion was
laid on the table" it should, and we
doubt not in the original, it did read, 'saiC
motion ,cas agreed to- This fact estab
lshed, shows that the vote on the pass
age of the apportionment scheme was re-
considered, and that. on the day of the
adjournment of the Legislature, had the
correct question been taken, the vote
would have been, "shall the bill passF'
In Parliamentary law it never passed tor
a re reconsideration of the vote ou its pass
age, placed the bill precisely IN the
condition it was when read the third time
These facts are sufficient 10 demonstrate
that the ionrnals Of both Houses have been
changed, and no longer represent the true