The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-03-01
session was granted to Messrs. Harrison
of Lewis, and Core.
THE CAPITAL

fused TO disagree to the Senate Charles.
ton substitute for the House bill tC
locate the capital at Parkersburg.
Mr.. Flick rose to a point, of order
viz. that the House had no power
to reconsider q vote by which a bill be.
cause law. Mr.. Flick asked for the
ruling of the chair upon this point
The Speaker remarked that If there
was to be any discussion of the ques-
ton, he wouldiprefer to reserve his de-
cision till afterwards.
MIR. Flick argued that II the House
could reconsider the vote under con-
sideratlon, it put it in the power OF a
majority of the House TO repeal law.
If the House sent a bill to the Senate,
1t could reconsider its action before the
Senate acted on it; but not then until 1t
had sent for the bill and got it back
law since its passage yesterday. 1t had
passed beyond the control OF the two
Houses. 1t could only be reached by
another act to repeal. If it could be
repealed by this motion to reconsider
to-day the House could at any time, by
suspending the rule which restricts
such motions to one day, repeal any
law passed at the same session, by the
action of the House alone, without any
concurrent action OF the Senate.
Mr.. SEQ ield denied that tho bill had
become a law or was beyond the reach
OF LD6 nOu66s h6 IuOlcu lEOul DIT
claY's Digest as follows: ga motion to
reconsider, if made in time may be en-.
tertained, Notwithstanding the papers
connected with the original proposition
have gone out of possession OF the
House," (pHge 1922. he also quoted
from Gushing on the law and practice
of legislative assemblies, to show that
ia motion for reconsideration may be
made and discussed in the absence Of
the paper to which it relates; yet if de-
ciGed in the affirmative it will be
wholly Intellectual and imperative un-
til the paper in question is in posses
sion ofthe House. The first step, there
fore, after u vote to reconsider is to
send to the other branch, or to the exc
cutive. for tho paper in reference to
| which the vote to reconsider passes, or
other wise 10 bring it before the House.
Possession OF the paper may also be
obtained before the motion to recon-
slider is made. In either case, the
motion for the paper is incidental to
| the motion to reconsider" (Section 1870
| Mr.. ScOfield maintained that n bill
though passed by both Houses did not
become u law until duly enrolled and
signed by the presiding officers of the
| TWO Houses. This had not yet been
done in the present case.
Mr.. Lamb said that according to
statute OF the Slate from which be quot
| ed, every act passed by the Legislature
'tshall taxa effect and be in force from
| its massage, unless it be otherwise ex
pressly provided in the act ITSELF"
| Gchap. 42 Acts 1868 not from the time
| 1t was enrolled or signed. Accord
| inRto express provision of law therefore
this bill was now a law. 1t bad passed
out OF the control of thesHouse alone.
1t could only be repealed by another
| law. The sections quoted in regard 10
| reconsideratiOnS did not, therefore, APP
| nj fn fEiu 81 1ll hpp0nSp the
| pers have passed out of the control of
| both Houses. The objection urged by
the gentleman from PendIeton ought
to be conclusive. If the rule of the
House were suspended motion might
| be made to reconsider every bill
passed into law from the beginning OF
| The session. AS soon as the motion to
| reconsider is adopted, II it has any ef-
feet at all, it brings these acts back just
where they were before they passed the
House. Suppose then, such rcconsid-
| Grafton having been made, that no fur
ther action under that motion should
be taken, then all the acts reconsidered
would fall. The adoption of the motion
now before the House would decide that
two. thirds of the House might at any
| time undo all that had been done by
| both Houses Mt the same session. A
motion to reconsider in It's very nature
applies only to something that is still
| subject of action before one House or
the other, and cannot apply to anything
| that has passed out Of their possession
or control. That can only be repealed
| by new law.
MIR. Hervey held that the House had
| poWer to reconsider any vote. 1t was
| true this bill had passed out of the care
| of the House; but the House could re-
consider and notify the Senate and ask
to have tho bill cent 10 them yesterday
| returned.
| L. I. III Nf n
| the Senate yesterday. 1t WAS not in
possession of the Senate, nor of the
| Executive, nor of the House. There
| fore the parliamentary law read here
did not apply. The act bad been sent
to the enrolling clerk. In law it was
| presumed to be enrolled. 1t was III
| possession of the State.
MIR. Plnncll concurred in the opinion
| that the point OF order was we'll taken.
After some further discussion the
| Chair overruled the point OF order. he
| had not been able to find In the BOOKS
any exact precedent for the case before
| the House, but the extract from Cush-
| ing which had been read showed that n
| bill might be recalled even when in the
| hands of the executive, and when, OF
| course, to get there it must have passed
| both branches of the Legislature. Ihere
was no case provided for by the rules
| of the House where reconsideration
| might not be had the following day,
except in cases of indefinite postpone
ment.
Although he was not fully satisfied that
such are consideration as this would
be admissible under a strict technical
construction of parliamentary law yet
being satisfied that many members
voted Yesterday under Il misapprehen-
sion OF the effect of their votes, ne
| thought it best to give them the beneht
OF this construction OF the rule, aud 10
place it in the power of the House 10
correct or affirm its action yesterday as
IL might deem best. He therefore ue-
cided the point of order not we'll taken.
From this decision Mr.. Carroll LOOK
an appeal.
The Speaker said he was glad the ap-
neal had been taken, as he preferred the
Il final settlement of the question should
be made by the House-yet he believed
the decision of the House would be re-
ally more upon the merits of the main
0uestion at issue than upon the parlla
mentary question. ,-,-,
Upon the question, Shall the decision
of the Chair stand as the opinion OF the
House? the vote stood:
YEAs-Mesars. 4Dayisson, Dis. Ed
wards, Flick, Gold, Harrison, OF JetteE-
son, Harrison, of Lewis. Raymond,
} Heryey, Howes, Hutton, keever, Man ,
ion. Miller, Powell, Scotield, Smith OF
Morgan, Snider, SnOdgrass and Iabier
-2l.
NAYs-Messrs. Ballard. Bowyer'
Carpenter of Monroe, Carroll, Charlton
Cunningham, Duffy. French, Garrison
. Gibson Of Preston, Gibson OF Pocahon-
tas, Jacob of Ohio, Jacob of Hampshire
Kincaid. Lamb, MahOn, Mann, Martin
HSoGIoSL,oy Piunell Putnam, Rey.