Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1866-04-28

tiyes Of the United States as differing from TINS an
to House rule 10 as the progeny OF that RUE. Iii
cede all this, and it makes the whoe case 20 '
stranger for nv view of the question: hule ~
mon tho snbiect of reconsideration. ltstaDes "he
and under what circumstances the motlon loI d Ie
consideration may be made ana snail De entertainer
Were this rule unaffected by rule 80, which yo
cnote IL would sustain your views. That rule ,S5
Il npon the communication to the Senate of matter
emanating in or appertaining to current actor
with the House. This rule, as limited by Mr.. Graf
tan's suspendng resolution of the alst required tn
Clerk to communicate, without delay Just such bill
as Senate bill No. %.
The power to reconsider is nowhere claimed, and
by no authority known to me allowed where thu
bill action proposed TO be Teconsidered las to TIN
vote passing III has been regularly communicated t
the Senate. Rule 10 does not assert or claim am
such power. Rule S. as stated by you, requires thu
communication without delay. Now, which rult
shall prevail The passage of the bill was regularly
communicated 10 the Senate under rule So. Gu
bOHO2
In your reply to my first letter, you rely on thu
fact that the bill not sent back to the Senate
but properly remained in possession of the House
AMI nothing went to the Senate but the fact that thu
bill had passed the House." There can be no ques
ton that ii Legislature imPOSSi6iity for tha
BILL after its passage, to have found its way back t
the Senate To have returned the bill passed to the
Senate, would have been an anomaly in legislation
do not agree with yOu that the bill renamed II
possession of the House, Nor do | regard any Of
the authorities cited by You sustaining this view
Possession of bill means present and continuing
power to act on it. Possession of bill is not par
tal or physical 1t implies perfect and entire rgh
to alter, amend or defeat. The entry of motion "a
reconsider after the bill has once passed out of the
possession Of the House creates no power to recall
the bill In this sense, the House did not, on the
9th of February have possession of the bill. II
had parted with il, under rule 49, by communicating
its passage to the Senate without any intmatiOn Of
Tbnf mil 90 ion
on the Goth impaired to the bill the vital power of
law which no independent action of the House, on
the 9th, could eXtinguish.
1t is not improper to cali your attention, at this
point to the radical difference between bills passed
in the Legislature of Virginia and Congress and Par
Lament. You are doubtless, thoroughly acquainted
with the whole subject, and a mere hint will serve
my purpose.
When, with us, as you know, bill passes both
branches of the Legislature, it at once passes into
the hands of the Enrolling Clerk, and is a law. In
Congress and Parliament no bill becomes n law,
without in one case, the signature of the President
and in the other, the royal assent. This statement
shows the inapplicabity of the 18th rule OF Con-
gress cited by you the original of House rule No
10. Both in Parliament and Congress- until the
bill is actually signed by the Executive it may be
recalled But with us no such power exists or can
exist. The moment the bill is passed by both
branches of the Legislature it becomes q law, and
dates from the day of its passage and not from the
date of its enrolment. When it is once in the GUS
tody of the Keeper Of the Rolls it can never be re-
called 1t may be repealed, amended by supple
mentary act, but it cannot he recalled.
This position is think, fully sustained by the
authority to which referred You in my first letter.
Senate Journal lS53-54, page ~. In your reply yon
make no allusion TO this authority. ! again call
your attention to it, "ieSolved That the Senate de-
cline to return so much of the communication made
by the House of Delegates, &c., &C., because, in
their opinion, the same has passed from their con-
troll il having been announced to the Senate before
the request was made by the House of Delegates to
return communication, that the bill had received the
concurrence of the House of Delegates, and that in
their opinion, the same is law of the land, until
the proper tribunal provided by the Constitution
shall otherwise determine"
Here is a sound, constitutional and parliamentary
construction of this whole caSc-One well worthy OF
your considerations and compared to which rule ~
has hut little weight. II is, moreover, in my opin-
ion fully sustained by all recognized writers par
liamentary law To those now recur.
have not " Barclays Digest" TO which you re-
fer But presume he is not at material variance
with other standard writers. have before me and
have carefully examined Cushing" Bureigh's
Legislative Guide and .efferson's Manual" As
you cite Cushing with marked appreciation will
rely chiefly on that work, and shall rely on and
site in full section 1854
Section 1910 The motion to reconsider, though
relating TO the same subject already considered, is,
in n parliamentary sense, nciC one, distinct both
from n motion to rescind the former vote and from
the subject of it"
Sections 127l-72-73-74 are peculiarly pertinent to
the subject matter under consideration. They each
relate to and treat of the effects of this rule. now
cite the entire section 1914, part of which You
cited in your reply to my letter; "The fourth eff
feet of this principle is that though motion for re-
consideration may he made and discussed in The ab-
seRcc 81 paper 10 rhich it relates yet, if decided
in the affirmative, it will be wholly Intellectual and
nOpertive until the paper in question is in posses
ytD tbn Ibn frs ctan ip "A
vote TO reconsider is to send to the other branch or
to the executive, for the paper in reference to whch
the vote to reconsider passes or otherwise to bring 1t
before the House. Possession of the paper may also
be obtained before the motion to reconsider Is made.
In either case the motion for the paper is Incidental
to the motion to reconsider"
This is a recognized rule. You quote it APPROX
ngy in your reply to my letter. Now compare this
rule with all the facts of this case, with the estab-
ished practice of the Legislature of Virginia, as
given in Senate journal 1884 page 10, and does it
not appear manifest that the 9th Of February
when the motion to reconsider was acted on and de-
termned by the House, that this bill not legiti-
mately in possession of the House." The motion
10 reconsider the rotc was there, but the bill had
passed into other hands.
In full confirmation of all this, refer you to the
note on page 507 of this author will not quote II
all, rs you have the book before you: The bill or
other measure does not cohere to the motion for re-
considerations 50 rs to lie the table with ii, but
passes along through its regular stages as if that
motion had not been made" This is the practice rs
applied to Congress, from the 10Th rule of which
rule 10 of your House is taken.
might cite various other points distinctly bear
ing on this matter, but ! deem it unnecessary
will conclude with citation from "Burleighs Lee
gslative Guide" page 262 Motion to reconsider,
section . But no motion to reconsider is in order
after the subject upon which the vote was taken
shall hare been announced, by authority, and gone
ont of the possession Qfthe Assembly,"
here rest this important subject. Vastly impor-
tant to my constituents, and in my opinion vitality
important TO the people of Virginia. ] am sorry to
have troubled you so much, but more deeply regret
the occasion. The defeat of this bill in my opinion,
has already cost Virginia millions of dollars loss.
It is not too late to repair in measure, the damage.
To have defeated this bill in q regular way would
have been great misfortune. To have thrust it
aside by n side move against all precedent is worse.
Hoping that we may yet agree, have addressed
YOU this long letter. If cannot, my constituents
must seek "new base" and test the whole matter
before the proper tribunals.
Please let me hear from you at your earliest con-
venience. | may find it necessary to publish your
first letter, and your reply to this.
Very truly, yours, &c,
rSignedl JOHN II. GlLMER.