New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-28
Resignation not Revelation.

From ne kv.urg Pos, Of FrcAy
The Tribune IN What purpCrts 10 be reply % our ari-
Gle Of y..terosy-s which shall erzs
srgurs that cOBsutUOne Questions can Only be decided
by the luocisl tribunals But THIS poor flea to % pat
10 1T ms sisFe Of The proceedings Wnen me question
frat came before tho Senate pr0poIed BY de-
uocrac suspend tbs operation Of The act un
decision could he had from the proper courthe court 81
s,t resort; but proposition instantly voted down
bv The Wings WHAT piece Of cnsrasnry II IT, then, TO
eAc'sm low " you OgguI " nc slo nc 49,. 80,
lion 10 90 10 he Judiciary AnOihS democrauc senator
propoed that rhou be submitted 10 vote Of the pep
pie hu, tni' voted down By The Wings Il was
not 10 their plan consult either The uGges or me people,
but TO rum the measure through stsl hazNds
From q. Evening Post nj saturday
We stated Yesterday 10 ieply its Tribune that when
the Canal bill fret up 10 the Senate Il was proposed
BY democratic To submit b question 10 me peo
Die or 10 the Judiciary thst The Wings opposed both
proportions The Tribune has 20 rslonder to this
If we had seen The Posts paragraph Of
Friday, we should have answered 1t on
Saturday, butt escaped our notice.
No such proposition as that mentioned
above, namely, to refer the constitution
atty of the bill to the Court Of Appeals
was made by a Democratic or any other
Senator when it first came up in the SEN
ate. At least we find none such reported
in either the Albany Journal or the Atlas.
The bill came into the Senate on the 4th
inst. On the 10th Mr.. Dart moved to sub
NIT it to the people, and on the 10th again
renewed that motion. 1t was lost bill
proposing to create a State debt must, by
the Constitution, go to the people; this
was a bill of another kind, and subject to
no such necessity.
We have already said that we should
have preferred to have the main question
submitted. But such was not the view
of the majority of the Legislature
and we yielded to it. Had that course
been decided on, however, different bill
from this would have been required.
So too Mr.. Stanton moved on the 9th, to
suspend the operation of the first twelve
clauses of the bill until July 20, 1852, in
order as he said to let the question go to
the people. That motion was also very
properly rejected; if the question were to
90 to the people it should have been in
more direct form, by bill specially framed
for that purpose.
And finally, on the very last day-after
the twelve Senators had resigned and the
revolutionary issue was forced upon the
Stste-Mr. Crook, not one of the disOr-
ganizing clique, not Democrat" after
the Posts pattern, offered an amendment
providing for submitting the question to
tho Court of Appeals. Now, supposing
that amendmeat necessary in order that
the bill might be carried before that Court
was that the time and was Mr.. Crook the
person to bring forward such proposition =!
Why had not one of the Posts men offered
it-as that journal enormously presumes to
say we did-at an earlier period of the
struggle! If they wished to avoid dis
organizing the Legislature, why did they
not propose it when its consideration was
possible Why, when the vote was ia
ken on it, only 10 Senators were found to
be present, and even had it been adopted
the bill could not have been passed.
But does the Post pretend that an uncOn-
stitutienal law cannot be tested before the
Court of Appeals without special enact
ment! If it does, it must have some new
light on the Law which is not generally
difiused among jurists and which it should
lose no time in shedding abroad.