Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-04-16

Adjournment Of the Legislafure-A QEes-
riOn for the Courts.
According to previous agreement the
Legislature adjourned sine die on Tuesday
morning last, at II o'clock. There are
some interesting and important cirCum-
stances connected with the adjournment
Of the Senate, which promise to make busi-
ness for the Courts to decide. Upon the
morning Of adjournment there were sever
81 bills, some Of them important, which
had passed both Houses, been duly ENROLL
ed and signed by the speaker Of the House,
and only awaited the signature of the
President of the Senate. Among them was
one supplementary to the late act repeating
the former law of Ohio prohibiting all ar
bitrsry arrests. One section Of the Ha-
beas Corpus act provides that if any person
shall arrest and remove from the pre-
cinct any person without due process Of
law, or shall adViss 10 such action, he shall
be deemed guilty of n civil ofense and
absll be differentiated. It will be seen that
thIs section Of that law opens the door for
DR.. Olds and his allies to continue their
proceedings against Colonel Bliss and
Governor Tod, which were supposed to,
have been closed by the repeal aforesaid.
The act in question was to repeal that
section Of the HaBeas Corpus act. It had
passed both houses, had conformed to
every formality except receiving the sig
nsture Of Lieutenant Governor Stanton or
Peter Hitchcock, President pro TEN. This
signature had not been affixed when the
hands Of the clock pointed to eleven. At
that moment Mr.. stsntOn's gavsl fell and he
declared the Senate adjourned. In the
House, the business being uncOmpleted,
the clock was set back nearly an hour "a
very common methOd) so that the House
did not really adjourn until nearly Il.
although it was but IL by the clock. A
similar plan might and should have been
adopted in the Senate, that the bills which
lay upon the Presidents table might be
signed. But this was not done.
The question now comes up, is the act q
law or not2 There viii be arguments sd-
vanced upon both sides. The 18th section
Of article I'd Of the Constitution provides
as follows:
The presiding officer Of each House
shall sign, publicly, in the presence of the
House over which he presides, while the
same is in session and capable of transact
ing business, all bills and joint resolutions
passed by the General Assembly"
This apparently decides the question
against the legality. But a careful oOnsid-
Grafton Of the case shows that this ruling
may be grossly abused. Under it any
Heutenant-Governo who is so inclined,
may defeat the entire business of the last
days Of Legislature. II he is opposed to
any bill, he may neglect to sign it until
the hour fixed for adjournment and thus
defeat it. No matter how important the
bill may be, he may destroy its legality by
the exercise Of the power thus put into his
hands. The one-man power which such
decision and precedent would put into the
hands Of the presiding officer is fearful. |
The whole interests Of the State may be |
sacrificed to the prejudice OF opposition of
one unscrupulous man. We do not believe
the Courts will decide in favor of any such
monsrchical monopoly. The strict letter Of
Che Law may be in its favor; but its spirit
iS totally opposed to any such usurpatiOn