Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-03-13
THE HISTORY OF RE-sUBMIss1oN.

The history OF re-submleslOn in the
second legislative assembly furnishes an
interesting chapter and one that will
doubtless have a sequel of more or less
interest and Importance. On the 18th OF
February Representative Cope, without
any previous plan, arrangement or I'm.
derstanding introduced concurrent eso.
luton repeating article 20 of the consti.
tuition. After a short but vigorous fight
the house-after remaining under call
for % hours-passed it.
These facts are more fully set forth in
the following resolution introduced in
the house OF the last day-in the after
noon-by Representative Burke:
WHEREAS. On tho 18th day of February,
1891, being the 3lst day of this legislative
152, being a concurrent resolution looking
to the amendment of article 20 OF the con-
%stitution of the state OF North Dakota, to-
wit: To repeal the same; and
WHEREAS, On the 18th day of February,
1891, being the 37th day of the legislative
session, said concurrent resolution was
adopted by a vote of 80 to 2q, after which a
l ~ AAAoS VtANS WIN wv " w llCll
the same was so adopted be r~econsidered
and the motion to reconsider be laid on the
table, which motion prevailing, said con-
current resolution was transmitted to the
senate on the 18th day of February, 1891,
being the 3Sth day Of this legislative SEES:
sion, and received by that body on the fol-
lowing day; and
WHEREAS, On the 9th day of February,
1891, being the SD day of this legislative
session, said concurrent resolution was re-
turned from the senate with the report
that the same had been indefinitely post
poned by that body; yet
WHEREAS, 1t appears from the printed
journal of the senate of date February IA,
1891, being the 10th day of this legislative
a%ession, that said resolution was adopted
by that body by a vote of IL to Is. as fol-
lows, to-wit:
Those who voted in the affirmative we're:
Messrs. E Bidlaksi Bisbee, BSjorgo, Brynjolffson,
~, Mccormack Of Grand Forks, McGiliivray,
Miller, Nelson, Palmer, Worst.
Those who voted in the negative we're: Messrs.
T Ttaifp, Johnson efn n o Of Wsr Hpf Kint .nt kuhn SDhn Meco Of
mick of Ramsey, Patch. Pinkham, Svennungsen,
Svenerud. We ser.
So the resolution was adopted. After
which, Mr.. LaMoure moved that the vote
by which the resolution was adopted be
recOnsidered and that the motion to recon-
aUS W ANAN oPoA IN OhOlSs 1kOl4 q "uO
demanded. The roll being called, there
were: Ayes Is, nays Is.
Those who voted. in the affirmative were:
Messrs. Bidlake, Bisbee, Biorgo, Brynjolfson,
Casihel, Fuller; Hagsart, taMouTe, Little, Low
Miller, Nelson. Palmer, Worst.
Those who. voted in the negative were: Almen,
Arnold, Engle, Enger, Ink, Johnson Of Trail:
johnson or Ward, klnter, Kuhn, Mccormick of
Ramsey, Patch. Pinkham. Svennungsen, Svens-
rud, Weiser.
So the motion to reconsider was laid
upon the table.
WHEREAS, The adoption of said concur
rent resolution not only appears in the
printed journal of the senate of the 10th
day of this legislative session. but the &C.
ton of the senate in so adopting said reso-
luton was done in the presence of a large
number of the members of this house: and
WHEREAS, 1t appears from the senate
journal of February 16, 1891, being the 42d
day of this legislative session that no ac-
ton was taken upon SAID resolution; and
WHEREAS. The report returned from the
senate upon said concurrent resolution
was insufficient and false as to the facts
connected with its disposition by that
body; and
WHEREAS, The names of the senators
heretofore mentioned are taken from the
printed journal of the senate of date Feb
ruary IA, 1891, being the 4Oth day of this
oOSohohs "ho Ou0G VII cdklIE 10 d
carrect transcript Of said printed journal;
Resolrcd. That the chief clerk of the
house be, and he hereby is in
structed to spread at length upon the
journal of this house this resolution, that
the names of the senators voting aye and
nay upon said concurrent resolution at the
time of its adoption by the senate, on the
18th day of February, 1891, may appear
urOn the official records of this house.
ResOlUed, That the chief clerk of this
house be. and he is hereby instructed to
transmit said house bill No. 1852, being said
concurrent resolution, to the secretary of
state and file the same in his Office, togeth-
er with a statement of the facts appertain-
ing to its disposition.
Resotrcd, That the secretary of state be,
and he is hereby instructed to certify said
concurrent resolution to the next legisla-
tive session of this state. together with
said statement of the facts.
ResOtDcd, That the message received
from the senate, reporting that said con-
current resolution had been indefinitely
postponed, said message being signed by
the secretary of the senate, be, and the
same is hereby expunged from the records
OF this house, for the reason that the same
is false, as the house has aScertained it to
De, and as appears by the names herein
before mentioned as voting aye and nay
upon said concurrent resolution, and from
the printed journal OF the senate of Febru-
airy, 1891, being the 10th day of this legisla-
tive session, said printed journal being
hereto attached and made a part OF this
resolution.
This resolution was not adopted by
the house however-the final vote to lay
on the table and not print in the journal
carrying by a vote of 30 to %.
The above resolution sets forth that
the printed journal of the senate shows
the facts as stated. That is true of the
loose or unofficial edition of the journal,
but the authenticated and corrected edit
iondoes not show this, and even the loose
edition does not show that the house
message and concurrent resolution in
question was ever received by that body.
The first record of it is where Jud La
Moure makes a motion to reconsider it.
But w this motion and all record Of
the first action on the resolution was ex-
plunged from the record by a vote Of 10
TO -, as follows.