The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1874-03-06
The State treasurer Contest.

|
The history of the State Treasurer
contest before the Senate is sug-
gestive one. The matter came up
in that body last Wednesday, when
the counsel for State Treasures
Welsh objected to the whole pro-
! ceedings on the ground of want of
Jurisdiction, the points made being:
first, the trial of the case involves
the exercise of judicial power; sec
ond, there is no express authority
in the Constitution for the exercise
by the General Assembly of such
power; third, denial to the General
Assembly of such power as was in
tended to be and is necessarily a de-
NAL likewise to each branch thereof:
finally, if the last two positions are
denied, still the exercise of power bv
the Legislature under the authority
claimed by the contestor requires a
two thirds vote for the passage of
the requisite law. It was claimed
that this was judicial proceeding,
and that the law being in operation.
the contestor, Weimcr, should have
proceeded by quo aOarranto in some
competent court. The counsel for
Weimer denied that the Senate was
a court or the proceeding a judicial
one. Thursday this was settled by
the majority of the Senate overrui-
ing the motion to dismiss the case
by a strict party vote, except Mr..
Lawrence, the Democratic Senator
from the Thirteenth District. Mr..
Lawrence is a lawyer and voted
against the competencyofthe Senate.
The next step was the introduc-
ton of testimony by the contestor
as to votes not referred to in the no
tice of the contestor to the con-
testee. The testimony was objected
to and rejected. The contestor then
asked leave to 80 amend his notice
of contest as to include specifca-
tions as to votes cast in Clinton,
Union, Ashtabula, Paulding, Stark
and other counties, thus making an
entirely new case. Friday the SEN
ate, by a vote Of 19 to 16, gave the
asked for permission.
Two Democratic Senators voted
with the Republicans agninst the
leave to amend, Messrs. Lawrence
of Marysville, and Worthington of
Cincinnati, both lawyers. Saturday
morning Mr.. Worthington filed his
protest against the proceeding, set
ting forth his reasons in a terse and
convincing document. The main
point is that the Constitution and
laws tie the contestOr down to the
specifications of his plea to be filed
between the sixth and tenth days of
the meeting of the Legislature after
the election, and no variation from
those specifications can afterward be
made, nor has the Legislature power
to permit any modification of or
variation from this regulation. The
action Of the Senate last Friday in
the case is therefore, according to
this good Democratic authority, null
and void.
The Democratic majority of course
will pay no attention to the legal OBJ
lection made by a lawyer to their
own number, and will take up che
case on the 18th as if it had never
been made. Mr.. Weimer will be
permitted to roam all over the State
and make just what case he chooses,
and possibly the Democratic major
ity may declare him entitled to the
position, but after the showing of
Mr. Worthington-if there was any
uncertainty before-it is very clear
Mr.. Weimer will find serious OBJ
stacle in his way at the door of the
State Treasurer's Office in the shape
of an Observation-Disclosures Herald.