Southern sentinel. [volume] (Plaquemine, Parish of Iberville [La.]) 1848-1858, 1850-02-27
OTEMINE LA. IBERVII]LE FEBRUARY 27, 1850
To the Constituents,
From The Baton Rouge Aduocate.

/ # To the Constituents.
From The Baton Rouge Advocate.
The seat of Government can be removed
from Baton Rouge with the consent of four
lltths OF both houses--qucre! Four-ffths of
the members present Of quorums or four-fifths
of the members elected! Article4-of the con-
stitution on this topic of removal does not
precisc-though it does elsewhere
aa sizaitiG procedere. Herein, of removal from
Baton Rouge-enlarge the propositon-remo-
val from Baton Rouge 10 New Orleans. Con-
slder-Artlcte-of the constitution-sessions
shall be held in New Orleans until the end of
1S4S-quere?s Shall the sessions be held in
New Orleans after 1S48-even with the con-
sent Of four-ffths of both houses, which how
ever it may remove from Baton Rouge-inquire
further-it may remove to New Orleans? con-
ceded that it may remove from Baton Rouge
| to whatever other place than New Orleans
Elements Of consideration-from B. Rouge
anted-to-whatever other place? inquire
If to New Orleans! or within six miles of N.
Orleans? Consider-New Orleans, the point
Of departure-for it was there then-when di-
reeted to remove thence inquire if direction
to remove thence, is suggestive of any falicity
to return, that is, that is, whether the sugges-
ton is not rather progressive outwards, than re-
Progressive, removal to whatever other place,
sequested, left behind in the contemplation
Is there any corroboration of the first impress
regardless Of New Orleans in the other sug-
gestion, Of sixty miles from New Orleans,
meaning perhaps, not only not New Orleans,
but not near New Orleans by 60 miles! See
constitution, Article -.
Other considerations, Bill ordinary carried
by mere majority of the whole even by the
preponderance but of one. But when coun-
terchecked by the vote of the Governor. 1t
must then be carried no more by the mere ma
jority of but one, but by t,Oo-thirds of all the
members elected to both houses, precise, ordi-
nary bill by ordinary majority, eventually by
two-thirds Of all the members elected. Now
consider another BILL that for the removal of
the seat Of government, inquire, is that, too,
an ordinary bill? if so it can be carried too,
like another, by a mere majority, hardly, for it
requires two-thirds of all the members elected,
to become even subject of discussion. 1t re-
quires larger majority to swell it into impor-
tance enough to challenge the Governors veto,
to wit: four-ffths, than the majority able to inn
port it over the Governors veto, to wit: two
thirds: hence the bll to remove the seat Of 60
vernment seems to be an extraordinary bill.
How if such bill be bill be counterchecked
by the Governors veto! how shall it be eventu-
ally carried! The first easy going suggestion
the ordinary two-thirds for the ready y-made rea-
son, that the constitution had provided no 9TH
er, but ready-made reasons, like ready-made
clothes, will hardly fit every customer. Dis
criminate, between bill carried by a mere ma
jority and eventually by two-thirds, of all the
members elected-for the first one-half of the
whole is the basis to ascertain the mere majer-
ty of but one more than the other half, and
eventually two-thirds Of the whole. For the
second-tour-ffth of the whole members
elected is the basis, ascertain it even subject
matter for beginning Of investigation, saying
nothing yet of its ulterior disposal. Suppose,
all the members elected to be one hundred and
fifty-seyenty-s y-six required to sarry bill-but
eventually one hundred to import it over the
Governors veto-this an ordinary bill But for
the bill to remove the seat of government, l20
is the first tangible (not eventual number)-
now what is the eventual majority required to
import it over the Governors veto? The pro-
| yided two-thirds is SO provided for other in
| stances and and not for this--but the two
! thirds more, that is, two-thirds Of the remain-
der between the precised four-fitths and the
whole, thus-of one hundred and fifty, four
| ffths-say one hundred and twenty-and Of
the remainder, thirty-two-thirds that is twen-
! ty. Conclusion--to carry bill for removal of
seat of government from Baton Rouge, four
ffths of 15O---l20 required in the first instance
---and instance vetoed by the Governor, two
thirds of 1910. So that eventually l4O, Of
of $50 is required to remove. +
Review. If a bill starting with Is may be
eVentuated by 1OO-how shall a bill starting
with 100, eventuate--for the two-thirds of
whatever basis is ratio consecrated by the
! Constitution, to import over Executive opposi-
tion-then if the basis is changed SO is the ratio
any other idea is as incongruous to logic, as
| it would be discordant to music to modulate
into different keys without correspondent base.
Remark, that the ordinary bill cannot be recur-
red to, and eventuated by its original mere ma
jority after objections. Executive but re-
quires two-thirds To suppose that the extra
| ordinary billfor removal, could be recurred to
and eventuated by two-thirds upon the credu-
lous idea that the Constitution precised two
thirds, would conduct ab adsurdun, to this
that the bill that could be No bill, without four
fifths could prevail over the Executive, and over
common sense and common arithmetic, by two
thirds--or, to strip nonsense stark naked-to
suppose that such bill could be eventuatsd by
number less than that required to call Il into
existence-or that, that the passage Of the bill
would acquire q facility by the obstruction Of
the veto, which, instead Of retarding its pro-
gress would make it easy -goingg-since it might
now be carried by 100; tho before, it could not
by less than 40; very implicit, that more is re-
quired for the second passage than the hrst, but
hereless; two-thirds Of 80; 100 sufices for the
second passage that required for the first four
ffths Of $50, 40. But have heard the CON