Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-03-12
AdIournea sea.lon Qne.,Ion in the senale.

For Market Reports and Marine News see fourth
Adjourned session Question in the senate,
In the Senate, on the 9th, Mr.. Stanley moved
to take from the table the House Joint Resolu.
ton, providing for an adjourned session. We
copy the following proceedings from the official
report
Mr.. .schleieh opposed it, holding that the
people having decided against annual session g
at the last election the Legislature oug ght not to
hold sn adjourned session. He thought il
against the unanimous voice Of the Democratic
party He doubted whether there was a Dem
Ocratic party on this floor. His general argu-
ment against an adjourned session was that the
people are against It.
Nj. Moore said he expected to vote for the
resolution. While the gentleman stands upon
the platform Of party, he said he stood on the
platform Of the interests Of the State of Ohio,
As a sworn officer of the State, he believed it
to be his duty TO stand by the interests of the
State, regardless Of party. When be first came
here he was opposed to an adjourned session,
He would rather be at home than here, but
investigation of the affairs of the State had
caused him to change his views, and he now
believed it his duty TO vote for an adjourned
session.
Mr. Harrison opposed the motion and resolu.
ton, because he believed it a clear violation of
the spirit of the Constitution. He believed the
well settled conviction of the people of Ohio
was in favor of abiding by the Constitution -
he believed an adjourned session against the
spirit Of the Constitution because it violated
the intention of the trainers of that instrument
and of those who voted forit. Annual sessions
with annual elections had been voted down by
the people in 1857 Annual sessions with BIZ
aunial elections, was voted down by majority
of nearly 100000. He understood that the
Republicans had voted against the latter princi-
pie because it was anti. Republican and anti
Democratic. If the people are in favor of an
nual sessions, let US give them an opportunity
to test the question. He had not seen one
newspaper m Ohio in favor of an adjourned
session.
Mr.. Moore asked Mr.. II. if, in his judgment,
as Senator, the interests of the State do not
require an adjourned session.
Mr.. HI am coming to that directly.
Mr. Smith, asked il the Senator knew how many
votes had been cast against annual sessions
and contended shat only 80, 900 votes had been
cast in the negative. The mode of submitting
the question was peculiar aud unique, and did
not give fair opportunity to test it.
Mr.. Fl. thought the people had time to un-
derstand the Constitutional mode Of submitting
the question. What question of Importance to
Ohio cannot be determined BY this Legislature
before April lst! What question ofimPOrtance
will there be for the next meeting of the Legis-
lature in January in 1851! Cannot the Auditor
of State draw an appropriation bill for two
yearsi Do not the annual expenditures of the
State furnish q sufficient basis to enable the
! 4 Of -orprnDrssfio, hill Tpe7T
could imagine case when an siourned session
would be necessary, but that crisis does not
now exist. He knew Of no reason fo' an ad-
iourned session.
Mr. Sohleich moved recess. Lost
Mr.. Garfield said while the Senator from
Madison had expressed his sentiments, he had
to say that if the question is not decided, this
legislature will stand adjourned on Monday
next, by virtue of resolution which had pass.
ed, and now lies on the table under motion to
reconsider. He wished to know whether the
Legislature would be ready to adjourn at that
time. He did not think they were, and would
now vote for the motion to take from the table
in order to decide the question. But he was
opposed to an adjourned session.
Mr.! Orr vindIcated the Constitution as a
Democratic instrument, and stated the concur
renee of the people with it. He had taken an
oath here to support the Constitution and
would so. He saw no necessity for an ad.
jourped session. the people had not demanded
but had opposed if.
Mr.. Mccall said he was a member Of the
Legislature at its first session under the New
Constitution, when It was said to be ''in the
hands of its friends" Many of the fathers Of
the Constitution were then here and admitted
that an adj iourned session was constitutional
ehsc oT,or,f
Of an adjourned session is mere buncombe, got
up for party capital. Both parties had endorsed
adjourned sessions. He was not frightened By
party bowls. when be came here his constit-
uents expected there would be an adjourned
session and be would vote for It.
Mr. Jones generally concurred with Mr.. Har,
rison. He saw no necessity FOR an adjourned
J session, and he believed the people were
against it. He was in favor Of obeying the
Constitution; yet if there are measures that
cannot be acted upon IN reasonable session
of the Legislature, an adjourned session would
' be proper. Such was the case Of the first lie
! gislature under the new Constitution, and il
: 1856, The first uneauigocal violation Of the
spirit of the Constitution was by the last Legis
latuTs, and if we hold an adjourned session VI
viii also violate that instrument.
/ Mr.. Eason and others called for the yeas ant
!; nays upon the motion TO take from the table,
Carried-yeas %, nays l.
: Mr.. Holmes moved to ameud the. resOlu:
! ton by'inseTting s;he die after 1860. Lost
yeas l3, nays 20. The vote was the same a.
upon the first vote, excepting Messrs. Cox anC
Garfield, who voted for the amendment.
Mr.. Sehleich moved to amend so as to ad
joun sine die on April lst, 1850. Lost-yea
IS, nays co.
Mr.. SchIeich said the question had now beel
fairly tested and he was willing to allow Ia
vote to be taken.
The question recurring upon the original res
olution to adjourn on the 26th inst, to meet OF
the first Monday in January, 1861, it carried
Yeas 81, nays IL.
Mr. Schleieh said there are two vacant seat
r in the Senate-Messrs. Perrill and Newman
and as he did not Wish to see any OF his frIendl
dodge the question, he would vote yea IN orde
to move reconsideration.
Q Those who voted in the sffirmativei were
! Messrs. Breck, Bonar, Collins, CupPy, Fisher
Glass, Key, Laskey, Mccall, Monroe, Moore
Morse, Parish, Potts, Potwin. Schleich, Smith
SPrague, Stanley, Walker, White-2l.
Those who voted in the negative, were Mes
srs. Brewer, Cox, Eason, Ferguson, Foster
Garfield, Harrison, Harsh, Holmes, Jones, On
Ready--12.
Mr.. Stanley said for the purpose Of settlipe
the matter be would move 10 reconsider tht
above vote, and IA lay that motion on the table
I.ost
? Mr.. Smith moved to indefinitely postpone the
! motion to reconsider. Carried,
The QestiOB of an Adjourned sessiOn.
The House proceedings of the sth on the sub
jeet Of an adjourned session are thus reported
10 the Cincinnati Gazette;
Mr.. Nigh asked and obtained leave to make
/ a motion la
He moved to take up the resolution Offered
! BY him. some time since relative TO an adjourn