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

to rec onsider is made. In either case Ihe hotIon
for the paper is incidental to the motion to recon
sider." -.--,...i,,. ,,,oinst
These authorities / regard as conclusive asains
your position. .,..,i.,. .or,o,t
JOHN b. BALDWIN,
Sneaker of House of Delegates
RICHMOND April 3, 1866.
Hon John b. Baldrcin, Speaker IF the House q
i SIp received your letter of the 9th ult.,
foI,- avs since in reply to my communication re-
nactinp the status of Senate bill No y. 1t would
have been answered sooner but for heavy and in
creasing business engagements.
am sorry cannot agree with you in the cOnclu-
sions to which you seem to have arrived. While we
agree, as to general principles and the recognized
rules adopted for the regulation Of both Houses,
there is wide difference in the application of those
principles and rules
deem it both proper and respectful to address
you again, as my convictions are rendered more set
tied by your reply | regard the admissions in your
reply as conclusive in favor of my views of this
subject.
You cite House rules 10 and 50. Those rules, so
far from fOItifying your position, in my opinion,
strengthen mine. Each branch of the Legislature
adopts rules for its own regulation; but neither has
the power or exercise the prerOgative of adopt
ing rules in conflict with, destructive of the re-
guar action of the other. This is one of the fun
damenta laws of legislation. To deny it is to as
sert a revolutionary power in one branch of the Lee
gslature to destroy weaken, or avoid the regular
proceedings of the other.
House rule No. 81 provides the mode for suspend
ing the rules of the House. Under this rule, on the
Dist of February, as you admit part of rule 50
was suspended. give you the entry on the Journal,
Wednesday, February 81, 1866 Mr.. Grattan offered
the following resolution
"ResOlred That so much of the S5th rule as for
bids any communication being made to the Senate
in relation to any action of the House while it re-
mains open for reconsideration be suspended for the
remainder of this session.
1.-THE House refused to refer the resolution, and it
was agreed TO-"
This resolution, thus adopted, did not, and could
not under any rule of either branch of the Legsla-
ture or by any recognized rule of parliamentary
proceeding, authorize or Justify the clerk to disre-
gard that part of this rule (S5) not suspended. The
remaining part rendered it the duty of the clerk,
without any special order" to communicate the pas
SAGE of Senate bill No. %. 1t was under this rule
communicated The plain meaning and particular
operation of that rule S5) thus curtailed that
the clerk should, without delay" communicate to
the Senate bill No. o." This was done. Senate
Journal, page 27S, reads thus Tuesday, February
81, 1865. A communication from the House of De-
legates was read as follows; In the House of Dele
gates February &c 1866, the House of Delegates
have passed Senate BILL entitled, an act to amend
and re.enact the 4th section of chapter l42 of the
Code of Virginia edition of 1860 No. D."
presume there can he no dispute as TO the rcgu-
Iarty scope and legal force of this communication.
On the House Journal of February 26, there are two
entries in relation to this b-the one its passage
the other the entry of motion TO reconsider
which is merely noted without any action, vote or
consideration, by the House. This motion was
made pro lorna. 1t was entered and was placed
on calendar. On the 9th, this motion, which had
nassed SubSileatiS, to the calendar, came up and
was considered, and vote to reconsider was passed
in the affirmative. This was on the eth February.
On the previous day, the passage OF this bill had
been regularly communicated from the House to the
Senate The Senate had received from the House
the formal announcement Of the passage of a Senate
bill. This communication was made under House
rule So as it then stood The Clerk, the House, and
the Speaker were all acquainted with these lacts-
The passage of the bill-that it was n Senate bill
that the communication of IFS passage was made on
26th, and would be received ana entered on Senate
Journal on 27th
| respectfully call your attention TO the legal inn
mort of these three Independent facts. They are en-
phatic. They cover the whole case. You were the
presiding officer. These facts all occurred under
your eye, and with your appreciation. II any one
of them, as they now appear on the Journals, was
erroneous or informal, it should at once have been
corrected by you when you examined and signed
the Journal. No such correction being made, the
presumption of law, rs well as the presumption OF
fact is that the House, the Clerk and the Speaker
recognized the bill as having passed on the Goth
and admitted it to be a law on the 9th The Clerk
had communicated - the action OF the House. Did
not this communication, made under 4 standing
rule of the House, take the bill completely from the
possession of the House
| respectfully differ with you in your application
of House rule 10 to this bill. The two days re-
0ured by that rule had BEEN as you admit dis
pensed with. The only question remaining IS was
the motion to reconsider 80 made and disposed OF as
to attach to and co here with the BILL and take 1t
along with il for consideration and mutual action by
the House on the 9th any other subsequent day
respectfully say it was not. If such were the fact
the journals of both Houses are incorrect, and your
examination of the House journal inaccurate. Both
journals, taken i'm conjunction show-the one (Seh.
9tel the regular communication from the House oil
the passage of the bill, which communication is al
frmative evidence and legally conclusive that the
bill did not 'reman open for reconsideration; the
other House iOurnaD that the motion to reconsider
was not by the House, acted on until after the
communication from the House haG been received
and announced by the Clerk of the Senate. (See =
J. 1884, page 49,
You seem to regard the communication of the
action of the House" as imperative. because the
.'papers" remained in the possession oil the House.
| respectfully suggest that, on the passage OF the
bill, it at once passed from the custody of both
Houses and was beyond the control of either or
both, save by some original and Independent egis-
lati0n. IL was law. IL originated in the Senate.
When it was sent an engrOsscd bill, to the House il
was in custody of the House and when passed with
ont amendment it could, by no rule or parlinmcnta-
nv precedent be returned to the Senate; nor could 1t
be kept in the possession of the House, it mt once
passed from the House to the Keeper OF the Rolls
The instant it reached that resting place there was
no power in either or both bodies to remove it or
touch IT, The mere entry in the journal of motion
to reconsider did and could not arrest the silent
transit of the bill from the Clerks table to the Keep
er Of the Rolls.
At what instant did this bill become law
Surely at the instant Of its passage, and the an
nouncement that the bill and title had passed if no
intervening or supervenng rule of the House stayed
il in its progress to the Keeper OF the Rolls Was
there any such rule That part of House rule No
rs, which, as has been seen, was on the Dist Feb.
ruary suspended for the remainder OF the session,
taken in connection with the regular communication
of the faction of the House." excludes the conclu
sion that this bill was not q law on the Doth oil
February.
motion was reached on the calendar, moved that it
be passed by, and it had not been again called mp
for ten days-wOull this motion have carried the
bill along with il
There are many ways Of practically testing this
matter, not only by authority, but by analogy
Suppose the Clerk properly noting the passage oil
the bill had refused failed to have enrolled it
would this have Initiated the law2 Again-Suppose
the Clerk, on the 9th of February, had informed
the House las he should have dOnc that, as Clerk,
the hill had passed out of his custody into that Of
the Keeper of the Rolls-that the fact of the passage
of the bill had been regularly communicated by the
Clerk, under standing rule of the lonse requiring
him to do so, to the Senate, and as Clerk OF tile
House he had no control over the bill, il being en-
rolled-by what law under what rule could the
House have again taken possession of the bill, I'M
der the motion TO recOnsderl Can you name or
suggest any process by which under such circum-
stances, this bill could have been placed again on
the calendarl
When does a bill pass out of the control of the
House, Surely, when it becomes a law. After the
communication of the action of the House TO the
Senate under the orders and rules of the House APP
proved by the Speaker has the Senate voice in
the matter-no protecting power? When once a
law can either branch of the Legislature nuliiy the
law or abrogate it, without the concurring action
of the other? When once in the custody OF the
Keeper of the Rolls, either or both branches OF
the Legislature withdraw it | know of no rule or
law which allows such thing. Could the entry of
the motion TO reconsider in any way attach to or
cohere with the BILL which was the object, not the
subject, of the motion Suppose this had been
House bill, passed by the Senate and regularly COM
municated to the House, with the papers or without
them-which is the regular and proper way-could
tue Senate have recOnsidered} Certainly not
Whyl Because the bill and papers had passed from
the pOSstsSi of the Senate with the cOmmnnica-
ton of the passage of the bill and the bill had be-
come law Why q lawl Because the Senate had
passed House bill, without amendments, and reg
ularly communicated the passage of the bill to the
House. Reconsider, because the papers had been
returned TO the House Surely not.
Now, what is the difference between the case thus
supposed and the one under consideration In the
point of principle, none. The Clerk of the House is