Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1870-04-21
VISIBLE ADMIxTuaE.
The Law Repealed.

Yesterday morning in the House
the question upon the repeal of tho
Visible Admixture Law came up
The roll being called, 81 members
answered to their names. The
Sergeant-at arms being sent after
the absentees, eight more eame
within the bar Of the House, and
answered to their names. The
House. then stood, So Republicans
(Mr Hill Of Erie being the only
absent one, and 43 Democrats
To repeal the law would take 81
votes. The vote for the repeal
stood, yeas 81; nays AZ. Mr..
MeVay, Democratic member from
Shelby county, voting with the Re
Ipublicans, because, as he stated,
he had always thought the law
wrong one, and did yet"
There were thirteen absentees,
three of whom were Democratic
Reformers from Hamilton county
-Messrs. Dodds, Corcoran and
Schoenfeldt, who lodged this ques-
ton. Another, and the most re-
markable, was Father Hughes, of
Highland county. This was said
to be the first vote he ever lodged,
and it was surprising to SEE a meas
ure Of this kind 60 through with
out his bigoted and determined OPP
position. If Hughes and Corcoran
had both been present, there would
have been plenty Of fillbustering.
When the vote was announded
Mr.. Parr, Of Licking county, moved
to grant indefinite leave of absence
to Mr.. Hill, of Erie, but afterward
amended it, so as to make the leave
thirty days, and gave as a reason,
that "the Republican party did not
now need him, as one of the Demo-
Gratis had gone over to that party,
thus giving them majority"
Mr.. McVay replied that he was
not responsible to Mr.. Parr for his
vote or his course upon this floor;
nor did he recognize the right Of
Mr.. Parr to turn him out of the
Democratic party; that he had al
ways been, and proposed to con
Jinue a Democrat, and SO vote;
that he had stated explicitly to
those who sent him here that he
would vote for the repeal of this
law; and knowing his duty, pro-
posed to do it; and no such slurs
as the Democrats were trying to
throw upon him would drive him
from his course; Good, good,
and furthermore, be thought the
Democratic party directly response
,le for the present Republican ma
ority in the General Assembly on
account of these obnoxious par
isan measures enacted while in
)ower, and therefore the ratilca-
ion of the 18th Amendment, which
le had opposed and still did op-
)ose.
Mr.. Blakeslee made some re-
marks upon the order observed in
he House, very pertinently and
'ery forcibly.
1t seemed to be the object of the
Democrats to kill time and make
he House as disorderly as posi-
lie, all the time holding the Re
,ublicans responsible because they
we're the party in power. And just
n this connection he gave Father
Hill of Erie, a pretty severe rap for
,oing away and leaving his friends
n the lurch in fact, giving his
,arty over into the hands of the
nemy.
We will not attempt to give his
emarks. They were sharp, point
d and severe, and came well from
gentleman who has observed the
rider and decorum which the mem
er from Williams has.
Acker made few loose remarks,
he had nothing to say
nd--wanted to say it.
The motion was then laid on the
lble and a motion made by the
young man of the name of Cal
H." from Mercer county to recon
der, did not prevail.
Yesterday was day of record
II the Democrats. These sepa-
tie votes haze placed them against
form. They voted against the
i'll for the repeal Of the visible adj
fixture act. One man alone dared
, stand out in defense of his prin.
plies and vote on the side Of right
nd justice, Mr. McVay from Shell
Y county, who voted for the re-
cal and stuck to it, the Democrats
ullying to the contrary notwith-