Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-08-11
nltscrllanrons
From the Ohio State Journal.
COrwln'S Decision on the Liquor Law

COTWln'S Decision on the Liquor Law,
see :hat two correspondents Of the
Journal have written on this subject the
one in attack and the other in defense Of
the decision of the learned Judge WHO now
writes c. J after his name in Ohio. 1t
seems TO me that neither of your cores
pondents have touched the true point in he
controversy; and in so far as thslaw is con
cerned, it matters not a feathers weight
whether tie decision was or vas not made
on sound or unsound principles. because the
basis or foundation OF that decision did not
aud does not exist. His Honor assumed,
without proof and as fearlessy assert con
trary to fact, that the law in question did
rot receive three separate readings in the
Senate or in other words, he say 'it mas
read but once IN tie Senate" when it should
have bad three separate readings, &c.
Now, understand that this decision rests
on this state Of facts: The bill was intro.
duced and read TWICE in due form; then re-
committed and amended, by striking out all
bu; the enaotng clause, and a new bill tex
cert the ttla and enacling clause) reported
in its stead. In all essential particulars
this was ike the one stken out but vary
ing in minur q etaile 50 much rs TO make it
a laoor-saying and time saving process to
throw all the amendments into one, Instead
of reporting and separately acting upon
gyeOtnumber.
Nov, our wise JQdge assumes that this
was "nel5 jH,' and should have been read
three times Oh three different days; and i
bis position is correct the bill would have
been thrown back by this process 10 the foot
Of the docket and beenintroduced as a new
IbjIl with anew number and tile, The com
mitiee bad osuch powcr, They noiphtre-
pert he bin back and have II rejected, and
then they or otners might report ae,g bill;
F. bat they could rot thus cavalisrly throttle
a bi! recommil.ed to them in lis last stages
10. Legislative progress, II was or vas not
when returned the same bill II 1t 0as the
same bin it was entitled TO its place On the
calendar II IL was not lbe same bill what
became OF the oae recommi,ted 70 them?
Again: The fact ia the comm,tce repopt-
cd an amendment Now, on amendment
20 hiIl ia not required By the constitution
OF ruIra VI the Senate, to be read three
times. l!il was an amendment to The orig
inai bill there is nothing ia any constitution
or rn!e Of legiela'ion defining how long or
how short such amendment may be. No
oac will dcuy that one section may he strick
en- out and q new one inserted in its place
IfoGc, then two, or three, or MI the sections
save the lille and the enacting clause may
be 60 disposed Of, Such is and | believe,
has always been legislative practice.
But Suppose the Honorable Chief Justice
is right and for the reason he asserts, this
law which he "haies wish q perfect
hatred" and "has never read and never in
tends to read" is ncH and cojd Let rs
see where we are in regard 20 laws in Ohio
am Informed by undmhted authority lhat
'ur present ScHooL LAW the PRoBATE
CoUEr Law the TAX Law, the JUsTIcEs'
AcT, and sun9ry o,'.crs equally important
stand in precisely the same predicGment: (: