Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-04-13
The Per Diem Question in New Aspect

tural to the editor of that paper, which we let pass without further comment, except to say, that we are done replying to such stuff. We wish to examine his arguments fairly, and will so state them.
 In its issue of January l, the Gazette took the ground that the Governor should not have adjourned the legislature to fixed day, but ought to have called an extra ses- | sion In that article, as in others, 1t speaks of the legislature having ceased to exist 1 having died of its own act, etc. This we | think is an absurdity. On that day he was not quite sure that the Governor did wrong, and closes his article with the ex- pression of hope that :" his Excellency, may be in the right
 In his next paper he takes decided ground and quotes Blackstone to show 1t was proro gation. He then contended that the resump- tion of the session would be the commence ment of new one. In this article he l quotes Mir. Duval as authority, that the Governor had no right ts adjourn the legis- lature.
 In the next issue, (January b, after reiterating its former positions, he copies an article from the Fort Smith Herald in
 which is this singular passage:
 eff, when the members return, they take
 up the business where they left off, and
 treat their reassembling as a continuation
 of the session, we know of no means by
 which they can be prevented from drawing
 their per diem for the time they were ab-
 sent. If they should decline to ask it the
 credit will be due them, and not to the fore sight of the executive"
 The position of the Gazette then was, that the Governor had no right to adjourn the General Assembly, that less than quorum should have remained and sent for absentees.
 | This position was taken by the Fort | Smith Herald, and the articles of each pa per were quoted approvingly in the other
 The State Rights Democrat first took the ground that it was all one session, and cited the fact of the Governors signing bills as to its being so recognized by him. It then adopted the language of the other two papers, and took the position that the Governor exceeded his authority. So far | they all agreed. All condemned the Go vernon, all said that the minority should | have remained, and sent for absentees. | They, each and every one, insisted that there was no disagreement between the two houses as to time. Up to this point, their positions being alike, their language the same, and each copying the others pet words of "prorogue, ' suicide" etc., it appear ed to be natural that they should all arrive at the same conclusion from the same pre- mises. The Herald says that the per diem was taken to legalize the acts of the legis- lature; the $. R. Democrat defends it by saying that 1t was a continuous session with beginning, middle and end, but to our | surprise, the Gazette parts company now, and says there were two sessions, and there fore the members were not entitled to pay, but to mileage.
 This complicates things If their pre- mises were true the deductions of each should be alike. But we find them differ ing in this. The Gazette says that the ac. tion of the Governor was wrong, and there. fore he made two sessions of one The | Herald says, he would have made two ses- sions of 1t if the members had not drawn l pay, and the Helena paper says that 1t was one session.
 There are two or three things worthy of notice in the arguments of these papers.
 First that the legislature ceased to exist. The legislature cannot die. It exists now can be called together, and its members are liable to be called upon to act at any | moment. It's sessions may be broken up. | dissolved, adjourned or postponed, but as a body, the legislature exists, unless maio- | rity resign, when special elections might be held to fill their places.
 The seconll position is that two sessions of the same legislature must commence bn- siness anew. Itappears to have been taken for granted, that if the same body meets | after certain interval that it mu.t begin | de novo But 1t does not necessarily fol- | low. We have high authority for the con- trary. Each Congress has two sessions At the second session the unfinished busi- | ness of the first is taken up and disposed | of The article in the last Gazette con cludes thus:
 And, as we have already stated, we are of opinion that there were two distinct ses- sions of the legislature, and all unfinished | business of the first session, which was ta- ken up, and acted upon by the last, is worthless and void.'
 To make the acts of the legislature valid | it follows, there must be continuous ses- sion. The same argument was used in the State Rights Democrat. If this be true then majority of the acts of Congress are void or voidable. Courts would have to determine cases at one term. When mem- bers of Congress received daily pay, upon their return to the second session, they drew mileage and not per diem pay.
 If the same body could not meet and take up unfinished business after hiatus of three weeks. they could not after the lapse of a day. The question is, was it the same body that returned to work? were they the same men and officers? If so, they natu- rally took up unfinished business as the same Congress does.
 Again. If the action of the Governor was wrong no taking pay would make it right If the logic of the three papers we have quoted is correct, no perpetuation of wrong committed would make it right.
 The more they argue it, the worse they make it, and as natural result of their req