New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-03
TIE SUNDAY LAW.
An Open Letter to the Secretary of the
Senate.
Nrv Opr ADv;l 1914

/ AAAS SOI~DA4 Ah"s
An Open Letter to the Secretary of thu
Senate.
New ORLEANS, April 9, 1874
P. 3. Bechtel, Rsq.:
DEAR SIR have read your letter of the
thirty. first ultinO, and being much sur
prised at it, you will not, l hope, be of
Tended at an expression OF disapprOval
What business committees have with YOU
is nothing to me, and the amount of con
sideratlon they should receive when coming
to inquire in regard to the condition of bills
officially reported as passed, is question
of taste which ought to be safely left to
you, as an executive officer Of the Senate,
| to decide.
But in the expression of any opinion or
the doing OF any act to delay the proper
presentation of the "Sundav law" to the
Governor, you and the Attorney General
| are both in the wrong. If all you say be
true, it is not sufficient; for the bill should
be considered with those objections by the
Governor and not by you.
In the statement that the bill finally
passed, Chief Clerk Vigers is correct. In
all others he, and those who rely on them,
you, the Attorney General and the Times,
which says the matter is ''ended," are wrong.
The bill seems to have possessed an ex.
traordinary power of causing misunder-
standing. In the afternoon of the last day
OF the session, on vote to suspend the
rules, several members voted exactly Op-
posite to what they intended. One in par
ticular, who, on this question, believed in
the justice OF forcing saloons to be kept
open on Sunday because great numbers of
people have leisure only on that day to get
drunk, and previously distinguished him
self in opposing the bill to obtain the dona-
ton OF lands from Congress because colOred
students would be benefited, helped the
friends of the Sunday measure by his vote,
thereby causing them great delight and
himself much disgust.
In the evening, as reported by the REPUB-
LIcAN, March 6, the bill passed. 1t passed.
by itself, and not, as Mr.. Vigers has it, with
No. 44O. 1t was quite late. The venue bill,
which had occupied the whole evening,
paesed, with Mr.. YOung's amendment, st
fifteen minutes past eleven. Mr.. Devezin
moved to suspend the rules to take up No.
44O. Mr.. Gair amended by adding No. 73
As amended it was put, and the chair de-
clared the rules not suspended by vote of
81 to 80. Mr.. Vigers' report is erroneous in
not stating this fact. Mr.. Gair declared
the vote was not correctly announced, and
after much discussion the vote was again
put, with two tellers appointed on Mr.. |
Gair's demand, "tO look over that clerk" |
MIR. Vigers' report is erroneous in not stat |
ing this fact. A call of the yeas and nays, |
the tellers watching the clerk with aston |
ishing sharpness, resulted, and was an.
nOunced 63 to 81. Mr.. Vigers' report is er-
roneous in giving it as 81 to SO. Both bills |
were then before the House. 1t was i'm !
possible that both should be then considered |
together for No 44O was on its first reading |
and No. 73 on its third. Either might |
have been taken up on motion, but it re-
CURED motion to place either before the |
House for action: Without motion either
bdl became dead. Whether Mr. Devezn
made any attempt or not to be recognized
by the Speaker is not important. The
Speaker never recognized him again. Mr.. |
eair moved the final passage of the Sunday
law, and the motion was put and declared |
carried. In order to fix the time it NAV be
noted that, during the calling of the roll
to suspend the rules, veto message of the
Governor was laid on the table of the Clerk,
and this happened at twenty. five minutes
past eleven O'Clock. Mr.. Devezin having
made no motion, Mr.. Vigers report, in say
ing both bills were acted on together, is
Incorrect The Senate committee then re-
ported the Senate ready to adjourn, the
House cOncurred in amendments to the ap-
bill and, at thirty-one minutes
past eleven o'clock the session was over.
Now, sir, the clerk of the House has de-
,lared the Senate Sunday bill passed, and
t is not for you to impugn the accuracy of
|
General to support you in that assumption
,pOn your statement to him. You support
7ourself by conclusions drawn from other
in his report. If these state
nents were true their truth would not give
1ou right to act as you have done; but l
how that they are not true.
1t is, then, your duty to enroll the bill
md present it to the Governor through the
roper chanuel. l.
l have shown it is impossible that Chief
Jerk Vigers' report should be correct in
aging that both bills were acted on to
ether.
The Attorney General having acted on
alse premises of fact is not to be supposed
o adhere to his opinion. Even if he should,
Is without value unless given to the Gov
rnor when he has the bill in his possession.
As for the Times, as it never had anything
DIRECTLY stated during the session of the
Ieneral Assembly, 1t would be unreasonable
expect 1T to improve ON the same subject
nce the adjournment.
am, etc., very truly yours,
ARTHUR E. ADAMS.