Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-01-25
souo PuinpiIiiilIa

SOINU =" MNAN NIA INV
We noticed yesterday, that constitu-
tional question Involving The right ard
priyflegeor aeerthin- -c1RSs Of individuals
would be argued before His Honor George
W.MeekeL Esq, and we promised our read
ers that we would give synopsis of the
speeches, discussion, ETC., and in accord
ance with our promise, we give'the follow
ing notes we took on the occasion:
A tournament upon a legal question, oc-
CURED before George w. Meeker, ESD, on
Tuesday morning. Hon. Frank Hurd, the
able Senator from Knox county, and Thom-
as c. Thurman, of this city, were the par
tlcipants In the legal combat.
The question at issue came up In the case
\ Of A.7Ws Dolsopy of the Goodaie HOUSE,
against ETC. Honiau, a clerk Of the Senate,
from ,Ashtabula county. iis hpFE q
Tie defendant, Mr.. Homan, claimed that
he was privileged character-being a
member OF the Senate, and therefore was
not obliged to answera Summons In any
, county but Ashtabula, and brought for
ward the act of the Legislature of 1862 TO
sustain his position. ,vrra s.D .v,-s
The point ID issue involved the'construc-
tion OF the act OF Feb. 7th, 1se2-which
provides (" that the members Of the Senate
and House of Representatives, and the
clerks, sergeants- -at-arms, door-keepers'and
messengers Of either branch Of the General
Assembly, shall be privileged from answer
ing to any suit which may be instituted
against any Of said persons In any county
in this State other than the county in which
said persons have their residence, in any
cause of action which occurred ten days
prior to the first day of any session of the
General Assembly towhich either Of said
persons may have belonged"
The defendant, Clerk of the Senate, on
motion to dismiss the action-relied upon
the privilege conferred by the above aet--
and maintained that the action Of plaintiff
was barred BY virtue Of the ten days speei-
fled, within which time, said right of action
must accrue. NJ AaAs1 NAEA .EA w
Also--That Notwithstanding the proyis-
ion of the State Constitution, which pro-
vides for but one session Of the General
Assembly-(and which he individually re-
garded as conclusive against the right, the
right of adjournment, incidental to all leg
islatiye bodies-applied with as much force
to adjournmentsfor thespace of one year,
as to adjournment for, one day-7and that
inasmueh as our General Assembly, as well
as the Executive, since the formation of
the new Constitution, had recognized the
right; that itwas the duty Of all inferior
courts to regard the adjudgments and laws
passed thereat, as prima faciG legal and valid,
until the fact was otherwise judicially de-
terniined-that the said second session OF
the Assembly, therefore, should beregard-
edasa distinct session of the Legislature ;
and the ten days within which said right
ofaction shall accrue, that defendant be
held to.answer, applies with full force'
The plaintiff maintained that the clause
of the State Constitution. provided for but
one session of the General Assembly. That
the right of adjournment ihcidentaf to all
Legislative bodies, was a limited right, a
mere privilege of convenience and neces-
sity, and did not carry with it The righttO
defeat the plain letter Of the Constitution
by adjournments from year to year That
the act of February Z, 1862, priyieging the
defendant from answering to any suit
where the cause of action occurred ten days
prior to the first day any session of the
General Assembly cannot apply to any but
the first and original session of the Gener-
al Assembly. That the said pretended
second session was nothing more than an
unconstitutional continuance Of the first,
and in. law could not be regarded, much
less designated as second session. That
the PLAINTIFFS right Of action accrued
within the time specified, prior to the first
day of the first session, and consequently
defendant should be held to answer l'''''-