The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1868-03-26
The Democratic Rioting in Co
lumbuS.

The Democratic Rioting in Co.
lumbus.
The act of the Democratic major
ity in the Ohio Senate, in dispos
sessing Senator Homer c, Jone
from the seat he was elected by
majority Of the legal votes and plac
ing in it Henry M. Onderdonk. wht
was not elected to it by a legal o
any other majority, was simply
brazen violation of law and of pub
lie decency in order to increase tn
majority in the Senate. They mad
no pretence that Onderdonk had .
had a majority of the legal vote
cast, but they usurped the power t
override the constitutional regula
ton Of the franchise, as it had beel
settled for generation by the judg
ment of the Supreme Court, and tt
disfranchise those who are. enfran
chised according to the Constitution
in order to throw out Republican
votes, and declare Onderdonk elec
ted.
The five Democrats constituting
the majority of the Committee or
Privileges and Elections, announced
their independence Of the Constitu
ton and of judicial decision in ac
ting upon this matter by the bra
zen declaration that ''the question
is one which the Senate should de
eide without regard to the decision
of any other department of the
Government on the same subject; >
and that inasmuch as the Senate
is made the judge Of the election re
turns and qualifications of its mem
bers, "hence no decision Or opin
ion of Court, or of any other de
partment of the Government has
any authority over the Senate in its
decision"
This means that because the Sen
ate is the judge of the elections o1
its members, therefore it is moi
bound by the constitutional regula
ton of the suffrage, but may change
it SO as to throw out members ac-
cording to its partisan needs. II
means that when the Democrats
have the majority in the Legislative
body, the question whether any 9th
er members shall be admitted shall
depend on the sovereign pleasure. Il
assumes that the power Of each
House to judge the election returns
of its members is the power to alter
the constitutional rule of the fran
chise. ~ @
The declaration that the majority
would pay no regard to judicial in
terpretations of the constitutional
rule of franchise, is SO open a con
fession of the illegality Of this act,
that it is hardly necessary to argue
the case. The Constitutions extends
the suffrage TO white male citizens.
The Supreme Court, when the bench
was filled by Democratic judges, de-
cided that the preponderance of
blood governed the legal classifi-
cation of race, SO that persons with
a preponderance of the blood of the
white race were white persons in the
Of the law. There is no
other common sense way Of deeid-
ing this matter; for what conces-
sion of inferiority in the white race
it would be, to say that the remotest
fraction of African blood in a white
man, made him a negro.
This was the Democratic consti-
tntional provision as to suffrage, ex-
pounded by Democratic Supreme
Court, and so it has stood for a gen
Grafton, although the last Democrat
ic Legislature before this attempted
to break the Constitution by a legis-
lative act, but failed. The Demo
Gratis, in this decennial temperance
of a Democratic majority IN the
Ohio Legislature, not only disregar-
ded the discision Of the Supreme
Court, by throwing out 42 legal
votes on pretense Of a mixture OF
negro blood, but, as this was not
enough to leave a majority for Oa-
ierdonk, they threw out enough
legal votes, against which there was
no pretense of mixed blood, to car
~ out their illegal purposes.
Thus the Democratic majority
placed itself in rebellion against the
Constitution and the decisions of
,he Courts, in order to perpetrate
his outrage. And this is of a.
character with all their proceedings
Turing the session. Their conduct
s mora like raid than a Legisla-
,ure. They resemble a gang of
John Morgan's men, in possession
IF an Ohio village, and striving to
destroy all they can before the
;roops come up. No one can point
% a measure for the public welfare
hat they have introduced or that
hey can be made to give any atten-
ion to.
They are engaged wholly in con-
'piracies against the law; conspira,
,ies to disfranchise persons who are
snfIanchised by the constitution
20 take away the control Of the mu-
,icipal police from both the State
ind the citizens fthe town; in leg
Stating against the State and Ma
ional Constitutions, suca as an ac-
% tax Government stocks, which
'epeated judicial decisions have de-
,lared exempt by the Constitution;
IN act to disfranchise college stu
Tents, especially aimed at intelligent
acts abolishing municipal
like our Board Of Health
because it is not Democratic party
,oncern-thus making that party an
lily of all the other pestilences.
The whole session is conspiracy
lgsinst the Commonwealth. And
n this the Democratic majority are
,ut repeating their fantasttical