This book has been DIGITIZED and is available ONLINE. OF THE U N I VERS ITY Of ILLINOIS 342.7712 01.3 1873 - 74d v.2 r *-2 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/officialreportof22ohio O’ OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION OF OHIO, ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, OJST TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1873. J. G. ADEL, OFFICIAL REPORTER. VOLUME II— PART 2. CLEVELAND; W. S. ROBISON & CO., PRINTERS TO THE CONVENTION, 65 AND 67 FRANKFORT ST 1S74. INDEX. i A d- INDEX TO VOLUME THREE. A Adair, William, Delegate from Carroll County call of the House demanded by leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by propositions introduced by reports submitted by remarks by resolutions offered by Albright, Charles J., Delegate from Guernsey County — call of the House demanded by 1164 eall for the yeas and nays 1224, 1237 leave of absence granted to 1577, 1661 motions made by 1138, 1281, 1972, 2033 motions to amend by 1216 petitions presented by 1122, 2128 remarks by 1657 reports submitted by, from Committee on Reporting and Publication 1966 resolutions offered by 1514 1629 1507 Alexander, Isaac X., Delegate from Van Wert County — call of a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by propositions introduced by remarks by 1064, 2260, 2269, reports submitted by resolutions offered by 1156 2248 2260 2273 Andrews, Sherlock J., Delegate from Cuyahoga County — call for the yeas and nays leave of absence granted to 1059, 1661, 2228 motions made by 1881, 1950, 2229 motions to amend by 1972 petitions presented by 2129 remarks by 1972 reports submitted by, from Committee on the Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by Absence, leave of given, (See names of members), resolution X o. 176, relative to, without leave, ^ffr. Voris 1703, 2065 II INDEX Accounts and Expenses, resolution for tine Committee on, to negotiate a loan, to meet the expenses of the Con- vention. Mr. West “ No. 161, giving the Committee on, control of contingent expenditures. Mr. Mueller report from Committee on, in reference to expenses 1348, 1416, 1629, 1772, 2053, resolution No. 166, instructing Committee on, to report cost of Stationery. Mr. Kerr : Adams, Rev. John G., prayer by 1282, Adjournment 1180, 1366, 1514, 1515, 1591, 1628, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1917, resolution No. 167, to adjourn sine die. By Mr. Tyler 1550, “ to a day certain Agriculture, resolution relative to the encouragement of. Mr. Hunt Alien Suffrage, ...1839, 1846, 1876, 1881, Appeal, from the decision of the Chair. Yeas and nays Apportionment and Representation, substitute for Section 3, of Proposition No. 194. Mr. Baber. Apportionment and Representation — Proposition No. 194, a substitute for Article 11 1577, 1643, remarks by — Mr. Baber, 1594, 1610, 1616, 1623, 1627, 1673,1688, 1695, 1705, 1719, 1724. Barnet 1723, 1724, 1729 Bishop 1649, 1716 Burns 1621 Carbery 1648, 1676 Chapin 1677 Clay 1726, 1687 Cook 1606, 1715 Dorsey, 1577, 1592, 1599, 1666, 1690 1693, 1717, 1721. Ewing 1622, 1684 Griswold, 1584, 1593, 1607, 1618, 1681, 1696. Gurley 1621,1626, 1707 Hale 1696, 1706 Herron 1647, 1728 IIoadly 1711 Mr. Horton u 1625, Hunt 1650, Johnson 1669, Kerr Mueller Neal 1602, 1653, Pease 1610, 1626, 1677, Powell. . . .15S9, 1683, 1685, 1708, Pratt 1592, 1611, Root Rowland 1652, Sample Sears 1604, 1622, 1627, Steedman Townsend Voris West Woodbury 1597, 1214 1314 2061 1348 1348 2091 1661 1643 1565 1923 1481 1704 1666 1643 1671 1674 1624 1648 1675 1718 1715 1677 1709 1733 1731 1649 1652 1711 1600 1713 I 6 O 5 33 Baber, Llewellyn, Delegate from Franklin County — call of the House demanded by 1121, 1589, 1615, 16S0, 2178 call for a division of the question by 1736 call for the yeas and nays by 1121, 1181, 1236, 1260, 1432, 1504,1589, 1736 leave of absence granted to 1295, 1378, 1935 motions made by 1566, 1613, 1699, 1736 motions to amend by 1157, 1420, 1457, 1936, 1937 petitions presented by 2059, 2128, 2228 propositions introduced by, (No. 222) substitute for Proposition No. 211 1922 remarks by, 1117, 1156, 1108, 1228, 1233, 1240, 1266, 1426, 1430, 1442, 1448, 1461, 1477, 1495, 1520, 1528,1571, 1573,1594,1597, 1607, 1610, 1616, 1623, 1627, 1632, 1673, 1688, 1695,1705,1719,1753, 1756,1799, 1845, 1911, 1926, 1936, 2061, 2063,2135, 2161, 2237, 2265. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1704 INDEX. iii Bannon, James W., Delegate from Scioto County- call leave of absence granted to 1156, 1702 motions made by 1303, 1504 motions to amend by petitions presented by . . . remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations 1442 resolutions offered by Barnet, David, Delegate from Preble County— leave of absence granted to — 1138, 1550, 1843 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 10G0, 1068, 1541, 1550, 1723, 1724, 1729, 1808, 1970, 2279 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Beer, Thomas, Delegate from Crawford County — call of House demanded by 2247, 2253 call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by 2247 leave of absence granted to 1243, 1661 motions made by 1313,1347, 1348, 1378, 1452, 1576, 2159, 2164, 2246 motions to amend by 1060, 1061, 1143, 1167, 1180, 1347, 1372, 1374, 1518, 1574, 2176 notice of intention to move an amendment to Pule 69 1213, 1214, 1348, 1452 petitions presented by propositions introduced by remarks by 1167, 1192, 1338, 13S5, 1453,1571, 1574, 2112, 2176 reports submitted by, from Committee on the Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by 1576 Bishop, Richard M., Delegate from Hamilton County — call of the House demanded by call for the yeas and nays by leave of absence granted to motions made by 1259, 1367, 1487, 1504, 1735, 1771, 1843, 2017, 2093, 2246 motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by ... . 1089, 1361, 1402, 1649, 1716, 1748, 1819, 188S, 1991, 2025, 2064, 2067, 2170, 2266 reports submitted by from resolutions offered by Blose, John H., Delegate from Clarke County — appointed on Special Committee 2058 leave of absence granted to 1550 motions made by 1280, 2128 motions to amend by 1215, 1237, 1548 petitions presented by 1488, 1629, 1804, 2128 remarks by 1152, 1215, 1237, 1280, 1370, 1533, 1548, 1640, 1752, 1934 reports submitted by, from Committee on Accounts and Expenses. . . .1348, 1416, 1772, 2053 “ “ “ Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith 2256 Bosworth, Perry, Delegate from Lake County — call leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by . petitions presented by 1951 IV INDEX, remarks by 1943 reports submitted by, from Comihittee on Preamble and Bill of Bights 1737 resolutions offered by Burns, Barnabas, Delegate from Richland County — appointed on standing committee 1181 call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by excused from voting 1396 chairman of Committee of the Whole 1577 leave of absence granted to 2227 motions made by 1121, 1452, 1504, 1619, 19J1, 1957 motions to amend by 1212, 1242, 1323, 1330, 1454, 1783, 1786, 1934, 1935 petitions presented by 2194 propositions introduced by 1702 remarks by 1126, 1199, 1225, 1242, 1324, 1412, 1425, 1434, 1559, 1565, 1621,1636, 1749, 1783, 1798, 1901, 1938, 2084, 2145. reports submitted by, from Committee on Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by Byal, Absalom B., Delegate from Hancock County — call leave of absence granted to 1577 motions made by motions to amend by 2027 petitions presented by 2228 remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Boyce, Rev. I. T., prayer by 1701, 1702, 1736, 1804, 1844 Bill of Rights agreed to 2117 0 Caldwell, John L., Delegate from Pike County — call leave of absence granted to 1844 motions made by 1701, 1702 motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Campbell, Lewis D., Delegate from Butler County — call of the House demanded bv call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by. 1072,“ 1144, 1145 leave of absence granted to 1246 motions made by 1171, 1844, 1876, 1917 motions to amend by 1141, 1796 petitions presented by previous questions demanded by propositions introduced, No. 224: In relation to the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors 2033 remarks by 1070, 1799, 1807, 1815, 1&14, 1S77, 1906, 1913 INDEX. v reports submitted by resolutions offered by 1844 Carbery, Joseph P., Delegate from Hamilton County — call of the House demanded by 1701 leave of absence granted to 1314, 1698, 2128, 2247 motions made by 1225, 1396,1514, 1917, 2162 motions to amend by 1238, 1507 petitions presented by remarks by 1085, 1088, 1150, 1232, 1238, 1365, 1431, 1453, 1510, 1535, 1648, 1664, 1676, 1746, 1814, 1874, 2025, 2087, 2090, 2220, 2281. reports submitted by, from Committee on Education 1367 resolutions offered by - — 1633, 1982 Chapin, Harlow, Delegate from Washington County — leave of absence granted to 1452, 1550 motions made by 1567, 1753, 1994 motions to amend by 1037 petitions presented by • • 1022 remarks by 1377, 1560, 1677, 2012, 2018, 2142, 2153, 2258 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Clark, Samuel W., Delegate from Jefferson County — call leave of absence granted to 1550, 1881 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1156, 1181, 1213, 1243, 1314, 1348 prayer by 1156, 1699 remarks by 1743 resolutions offered by 1071 reports submitted by, from Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 , Clark, Milton L., Delegate from Ross County — call leave of absence granted to leave to change vote motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1469, 2254 1440 1073, 1198, 1922, 1923 1320 1244, 1320, 1438, 2126, 2132, 2174, 2249 Clay, Adam, Delegate from Montgomery County — call leave of absence granted to 1122, 1702 motions made by 2018 motions to amend by 1643, 1952 petitions presented by 1568 remarks by 1626, 1687, 1952 reports submitted by, from Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1737 “ Corporations other than Municipal 2060 resolutions offered by Coats, John B., Delegate from Union County — leave of absence granted to motions made by jnotions to amend by , petitions presented by 1059, 1348, 1661, 2054 1506, 1549 1563 1629,1981 VI INDEX. remarks by 1122, 1241, 1457, 1482, 1512, 1530, 15 38, 1550, 15G4, 1575 reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations 1442 “ Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 Cook, Asher, Delegate from Wood County- call chairman of Committee of the Whole 1171 leave of absence granted to 1772 motions made by 1488, 1577, 1589, 1606, 1658, 1679, 1966, 2060, 2186, 2194, 2229, 2257 motions to amend by 2275 petitions presented by 1922, 1981, 2018, 2128 propositions introduced by remarks by. . .1220, 1227, 1376, 1424, 1430, 1486, 1566, 1570, 1715, 1755, 1765, 1881, 1968, 2066, 2181, 2186, 2262, 2264. reports submitted by, from Committee on Education 1367, 1488 resolutions offered by Cowen, D. D. T., Delegate from Belmont County — call of the House demanded by 2253 call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by 1454, 1532, 2247, 2253 leave of absence granted to 1549, 1702 motions made by 1145, 1532, 1666, 2253 motions to amend by 1453, 1455, 1485, 1498, 1638, 2118, 2154 petitions presented by 2059 remarks by 1153, 1305, 1401, 1445, 1470, 1540, 1548, 2154, 2277 reports submitted by, from Committee on Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by Cunningham, T. E., Delegate from Allen County — appointed on Special Committee 2054 call of the House demanded by call chairman of Committee of the Whole 1795 leave of absence granted to 1347 motions made by 1256, 1919, 2112, 2178, 2248, 2270 motions to amend by 1139, 1142 petitions presented by remarks by, 1115, 1151, 1182, 1185, 1235, 1240, 1258, 1260, 1264, 1280, 1352, 1744, 1785, 1808, 1863, 1929, 1955, 2056, 2086, 2091. reports submitted by, from Com. on Corporations other than Municipal 2060 resolutions offered by 19S0, 2054, 2061 Cantfield, Rev. I. S. Prayer by 1314 Church property. (See Taxation.) Collins, Rev. S. A. Prayer by 156S, 1629 Committees, standing — request for the President to fill vacancies on the 1059 “ “ appointments on the , 11S1, 2112 “ Special “ on 1844 Commissioner of Common Schools, resolution requesting information from 1844 Corporations — “ Proposition No. 216, to amend Article 13. By Mr. Mueller 1597 “ petition to relieve stockholders of, from individual liability of. Mr. Baber. 2059 Corporations other than Municipal — leave granted to hold sessions during the sessions of the Convention 1296 report from Committee on 2112 County officers — table of fees of 1463 Courts — petition to make Franklin County a separate district 1059 “ “ “ Licking “ “ “ “ 1314 “ “ “ Montgomery “ 1568 INDEX, VII Criminal jurisdiction— petition on the subject of. Mr. Thompson County and Township Organizations — Proposition No. 189, a Substitute for Article 10 remarks by — 1951 1441, 1G35 Mr. Baber 1442, 1448, 1461, 1572 Mr. Humph reville 1447 a Barnet a Miner u Beer 1571, 1574 a Mullen 1472 a Blose 1640 il Neal 1443, 1860 u Chapin 1560 ll Okey 1345 u Coats .1457, 1482, 1550, 1564 it Pond 1447,1472 ,1546,1557, 1638 u Cook 1486, 1572 It Powell 1549, 1554, 1637 u Cowen (i Pratt 1485, 1555, 4572 iC Cunningham.. . il Sample 1444, 1573, 1483 a Doan 1551 il Tuttle . . . .1458, 1473, 1487 a Dorsey 1475 il Voris 1455, 1471 u Ewing 1468, 1554, 1557, 1636 a West 1466 a Griswold, 1443 ,1447,1459,1467, 1569 a White, of Brown. . . . < t Gurley 1637 a Wilson u Hale. . 1465, 1470 Yeas and nays on amendments U Hitchcock, 1469, 1553,1562, 1575, 1639 1476, 1478,1483, 1485, , 1548, 1572, 44 Horton 1576, 1643, 1646. D De Steiguer, Kodolph, Delegate from Athens County — appointed on Special Committee . 1844 leave of absence granted to 1243, 1504, 1698, 2054 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Doan, A. W., Delegate from Clinton Count}" — leave of absence granted to motions made by 1589 motions to amend by 1222 petitions presented by 1488, 1568, 2129 remarks by 1535, 1551 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Dorsey, G. Volney, Delegate from Miami County — appointed on Special Committee call for a division of the question 1216, leave of absence granted to ... 1550, motions made by 1628, 1734, motions to amend by, 1349, 1400, 1482, 1606, 1608, 1625, 1693, 1706, 1727, 1745, 1938, 1943, 1974, 1977, 2047. petitions presented by propositions introduced by. remarks by, 1103, 1172, 1221, 1228, 1349, 1364, 1375, 1391, 1400, 1417, 1475, 1577, 1591, 1599, 1615, 1621, 1625, 1666, 1690, 1706, 1717, 1721, 1861, 1888, 1938, 1974, 1994, 2012, 2035, 2038, 2048, 2055, 2267, 2270, 2284. reports submitted by, from Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith resolutions offered by 1703, rules, notice of intention to suspend 70. 2058 1236 2054 2260 2254 2256 2256 1703. VIII INDEX. Debates and Proceedings, resolutions concerning the publication of 1969 Dogs, petitions praying for the taxation of 1243, 1577 Dogs, petitions praying for the annihilation of 1488 Dogs, addition to section 9, proposition No. 189, reference to 1636 E Ewing, Thomas, Delegate from Fairfield County — call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by leave of absence granted to 1246,1702,1772, 2094 motions made by 1121, 1406, 1644, 1698, 1701, 1881, 2091 motions to amend by 1148, 1636, 1923, 1930 petitions presented by propositions introduced by 1566 remarks by . . . . 1138, 1151, 1341, 1378,1383, 1393, 1406, 1408, 1419, 1436, 1468, 1476, 1494, 1521, 1545, 1554, 1557, 1622, 1636, 1641, 1684, 1885, 1908, 197S, 2055. reports submitted by, from Committee on Corporations other than Municipal 2060 resolutions offered by 1635, 2065, 2093 Education — report from Committee on “ “ “ submitting additional sections to Article 6 petitions relative to the report of the Committee on 1922, 1981, 2018, remarks by Elective Franchise — proposition No. 221, an additional section to Article 5, Mr. Burns proposition No. 203, a substitute for Article 5, from Committee on Evening sessions — resolution relative to holding, on and after March 10, Mr. Hoadly. Elective Franchise — Proposition No. 203, a Substitute for Article 5, from Com. on remarks by — Mr. Andrews 1972 Mr. Miner Baber Blose Bosworth. Burns Campbell. 1799, 1846, 1911, 1926 1934 1943 1798, 1901, 1938 .1799, 1815, 1877, 1913 Carbery 1814 Clay 1952 Cook 1881 Cunningham 1863, 1929 Dorsey 1861, 1888, 1943, 1974 Ewing 1887, 1908 Foran 1865, 1915 Gurley 1953 Hale 1928, 1938 Hitchcock 1959 Hoadly 1876, 1923 Kraemer 1913, 1925 McCormick 1852 Mueller 1855, Neal 1935, Page Philips Powell 1891, Root Rowland 1871, 1894, Russell of Meigs Sample 1796, 1857, 1940, Scribner Sears Steedman 1854, 1933, Townsend Tuttle 1904, V oris 1816, West 1856, 1867, White of Brown Wilson 1928, 1367 1488 2059 1702 1795 1704 1883 1931 1952 1882 1871 1960 195S 1924 1955 1953 1953 1945 1889 1956 1974 1896 1892 1953 INDEX. IX F Foran, Martin A., Delegate from Cuyahoga County — leave of absence granted to 1348, 2054 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1059, 1702 propositions introduced by remarks by 1079, 1757, 1865, 1915, 2081 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Freiberg, Julius, Delegate from Hamilton County — leave of absence granted to 1566 motions made by 1619 motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 1411, 1635, 1751, 2257 reports by, submitted from Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 resolutions offered by Female Suffrage. (See Suffrage.) Finance and Taxation. (See Revenue and Taxation .) Franklin County Bar, petition from 1059, 2059 French, Rev. W. H., prayer by 1772 G Gardner Mills, Delegate from Fayette County — call of the House demanded by 1500 leave of absence granted to 1156, 1550 motions made by 1260 motions to amend by 1323 petitions presented by remarks by 1325, 1431, 1534, 1551 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Godfrey, Thomas J., Delegate from Mercer County — appointed on Special Committee i call of the House demanded by chairman of the Committee of the Whole leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 2054 1059 1162 1162, 1791, 2137 2054 Greene, Jacob J., Delegate from Defiance and Paulding Counties — leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 1596 INDEX. reports submitted by resolutions offered by. Griswold, S. O., Delegate from Cuyahoga County — call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by leave of absence granted to motions made by 1250, 1295, 1396, 1442, 1455, 1515, 1537, 1577, 1680, motions to amend by 1569, 1615, 1695, petitions presented by propositions introduced by, No. 225, a substitute for Article 13 remarks by 1229, 1235, 1243, 1248, 1259, 1266, 1283, 1285, 1306, 1323, 1359, 1369, 1412,1424, 1443, 1459, 1467, 1476,1547, 1552, 1569, 15S4, 1593, 1607, 1618, 1681, 2023, 2046. reports submitted by, from Committee on Reporting and Publication reports submitted by, from Committee on Corporations other than Municipal resolutions offered by 1405 1481 1661 2129 2266 1213 2060 1966 2060 Gurley, John J., Delegate from Morrow County — call leave of absence granted to .1138, 1156, motions made by motions to amend by 1730, petitions presented by remarks by 1564, 1621, 1624, 1626, 1637, 1707, 1708, 1747, 1953, 2013 , 2038, 2062, reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 2227 1935 1762 1596 2086 Guthrie, Delegate from Shelby County — appointed on standing committees elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Hon. Edmund Smith leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by oath administered to petitions presented by remarks by • reports submitted by resolutions offered by Mr. Rowland Gifts, &c., to Religious Societies. proposition No. 219, not to be made except upon conditions God in the Constitution — petitions for the recognition of — Presented by — Mr. Chapin 922 “ Clark, of Jefferson, 1156, 1243, 348 1181, 1314. “ Co wen 2059 “ Hostetter 1213 “ Hunt 1844 “ Kerr 1922 “ King 1088 petitions against the recognition of — presented by — Mr. Blose 1804 “ Foran 1059, 1702 “ Horton 1516 “ McCauley 2094 Mr. Mueller 1635 Russell, of Muskingum Shaw. Smith, of Shelby Towns ley Waddle, 1059, 1736,1881, 1922, 2059. 1348 1243 1981 1881 1702 1981 Mr. Thompson “ Reilly . . “ Wilson... 1282, 1314, 1416, 1156, 1795 1452 1378 INDEX. XI See Preamble and Bill of Rights, discussed Gray, Rev. Richard— prayer by 1742 1416 H Hale, John C., Delegate from Lorain County — call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by 1164 leave of absence granted to 1549, 2054 motions made by 1164, 1533, 1643, 1701, 1734, 1S65, 1881, 1950, 2247 motions to amend by 1613, 1695 previous question demanded by petitions presented by 1488 remarks by, 1182,1321, 1360,1374, 1465, 1470,1476, 1547, 1614, 1694, 1695, 1706, 1734, 1794, 1928, 1938, 1940, 2037,2101. reports submitted by, from Committee on Judicial Department 2229* resolutions offered by Herron, John W., Delegate from Hamilton County — appointed on Standing Committee 1181 leave of absence gran ted' to motions made by 1073, 1296,1303, 1514,1916, 1972, 2247 motions to amend by 1304, 1423, 1692, 228G petitions presented by 1921 propositions introduced by, No. 223, to amend Article 6 1982 remarks by 1305, 1344, 1422, 1608, 1647, 1693, 1728,2286, 2288 reports submitted by, from Committee on Corporations other than Municipal resolutions offered by 2060 Hill, George William, Delegate from Ashland County — appointed on Special Committee 2058 leave of absence granted to 1661 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 1314, 1629, 1804, 1812, 2056, 223G reports submitted by, from Committee on Accounts and Expenses, 1348, 1416, 1629, 2772, 2053. reports submitted by, from Committee on Reporting and Publication I960 “ “ “ Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith 2256 Hitchcock, Peter, Delegate from Geauga County — call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by 1060, 1576, 1589, 1597 call for the yeas and nays by chairman in Committee of the Whole leave of absence granted to 1347 motions made by, 1087, 1121, 1568, 1569, 1576, 1577, 1597, 1655, 1698, 1796, 1821, 1865, 1956, 1977. motions to amend by, 1138, 1139, 1144, 1162, 1199, 1226, 1231, 1255, 1322, 14S5, 1530, 1552, 1562, 2129. petitions presented by 2094 remarks by, 1068, 1139, 1162, 1165, 1170, 1175, 1199, 1201, 1206, 1226, 1231, 1432, 1469 1485, 1495, 1530, 1542, 1552, 1562, 1567, 1570, 1631, 1639, 1657, 1805, 1958, 2070, 2130, 2138, 2265. reports submitted by, from Select Committee on the death of Hon. John D. O’Connor 1655 resolutions offered by 1567, 1679, 1772. XII INDEX. Hoadly, George, Delegate from Hamilton County — call of the House demanded by 1073, 12G0, 1395, 1532, 2111 call for the yeas and nays by 1212, 1514, 1532, 1980 leave of absence granted to 1156, 1543 motions made by. .1143, 1213, 1283, 1295, 1315, 1349, 1441, 1492, 1503, 1504, 1701, 1996, 2117 motions to amend by 1205, 1347, 1440,1507, 1779, 1813 petitions presented by 2128 remarks by, 1062, 1068, 1073, 1142, 1143, 1147, 1204, 1247, 1261, 1288, 1303, 1317, 1320, 1342, 1362, 1375, 1383, 1402, 1406, 1420, 1452, 1489, 1492, 1523, 1533, 1711, 1750, 1779, 1876, 2003, 2095, 2107, 2119, 2164. reports submitted by, from Select Committee of One on Legislative Department 1497 “ “ “ “ Committee on Deporting and Publication 1966 resolutions offered by 1704 Horton, Joseph D., Delegate from Portage County — •call of call for the yeas and nays leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 1090, 1153, 1533, 1571, 16 25, reports submitted by, from “ “ u Committee on Judicial Department. 1630 1213,1918 1442, 1567, 1701, 1738 1478,1618 1516 1634, 1643, 1738, 1760, 2223 2229 Hostetter, James C., Delegate from Stark County — leave of absence granted to 1702 motions made by motions to amend by 1646, 2014, 2147 petition presented by 1213 remarks by 2011, 2016, 2147 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Humphreville, Samuel, Delegate from Medina County- call for a division of the question 1205 chairman of Committee of the Whole . . .2129, 2164, 2194 leave of absence granted to 1543 motions made by 1156, 1181, 1214, 1243, 1281, 1282, 1287, 1288, 1487 motions to amend by 1205, 1215 petitions presented by remarks by, ....1065, 1147, 117e, 1173, 1197, 1211, 1216, 1224, 1247, 1403, 1423, 1447, 1493, 1519, 1525, 1976. reports submitted by from resolutions offered by Hunt, Samuel F., Delegate from Hamilton County — appointed on Special Committee 2058 call for a division of the question 2079 chairman of Committee of the Whole leave of absence granted to. . , 1702, 1981 motions made by 1242, 1331, 1469, 1498, 1532, 1666, 2111, 2269 motions to amend by petitions presented by 1844 remarks by 1079, 1169, 1191, 1193, 1196, 1233, 1256, 1276, 128S, 1355, 1499, 1650, 1671 report submitted by, from Select Committee of One on Legislative Department 1507 resolutions offered by : 1565 Halley, Eben — prayer by 1181, 1213, 1243 INDEX. XIII Hills, Rev. O. A.— prayer by Hobbs, Rev. A. J. 2254 ,2128, 2163, 2194, 2228 I Intoxication — Proposition No. 218, rendering any person ineligible to hold any judicial office who is guilty of habitual or occasional. Mr. Voris 1577 J Jackson, Lyman J. s Delegate from Perry County- call leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Com. on Preamble and Bill of Rights, resolutions offered by 1568, 1698, 2111 1774, 1813, 2093 1737 Johnson, Elias H., Delegate from Hamilton County- leave of absence granted to 1122 > loo() motions made by 139o > 17ol > 1786 > 207a motions to amend by petitions presented by . 2118, 2144 remarks by '. ’**’’..'..*’** 1116, 1669, 1674, 2019, 2037, 2119 reports submitted by, from Com. on County and Township Organizations - 1442 a « « Com. on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1737 resolutions offered by Judicial Department— report of the Committee on the 2229 K Kerr, William P., Delegate from Licking County — appointed on Special Committee call leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Education resolutions offered by 1844 1059, 1698, 2228 1314, 1629, 1922 1624, 1634, 1747, 2191 1367 1348,1844, 2061 Kraemer, Adolphus, Delegate from Ottawa County — leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by personal explanation remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 2128 1917 1952 1344, 1409, 1839, 1914, 1925, 1932, 2013 XIV INDEX King, Rufus, Delegate from Hamilton County, and President of the Convention — committees appointed by 1181, 2112 leave of absence granted to excused from serving on Standing Committee 1059 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1059, 1088, 1213, 1243, 1814, 1596, 1698, 1736 remarks by 1299 L Layton, W. V. M., Delegate from Auglaize County — call of the House demanded by call for the yeas and nays by 1533 leave of absence granted to 1550, 1568 motions made by 1396 motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by 1152, 1262, 1327, 1426, 1512, 1535 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Legislative Department- discussion of Proposition No. 190 remarks by — Mr. Albright 1217 “ Alexander 1064 “ Baber, 1117, 1156, 1168, 1228, 1266, 1529. “ Barnet 1060, 1541 “ Beer 1167, 1192 “ Bishop 1089 “ Blose 1152, 1215, 1237, 1280 Burns 1126 “ Campbell 1070, 1141 “ Carbery, 1085, 1088, 1150, 1232, 1238, 1510, 1535. “ Clark of R 1244 Mr. Johnson 1116 “ Layton 1152, 1262, 1512 “ Miner 1150,1230, 1509 “ Mueller . . 1065, 1101, 1241, 1502, 1516 “ Mullen 1120, 1221, 1537 “ Neal 1157, 1195, 1499, 1521, 1536 “ Page 1170, 1186, 1529 “ Pease .1111, 1527 “ Pond 1174, 1210,1234, 1282, 152o “ Powell. . .1176, 1188, 1255, 1261, 1274 “ Reilly 1540 “ Root, 1061,1077,1148,1162,1168, 1200, 1203, 1238, 1283. “ Coats. . . .1122, 1241, 1512, 1530, 1538 “ Cook 1220 “ Cowen 1153, 1539 “ Cunningham, 1115, 1151, 1185, “ Rowland 1499, 1509 “ Russell of Meigs 1207, 1250 “ Sample, 1067, 1189, 1251, 1267, 1491, 1526. 1235, 1260, 1264. “ Dorsey 1103, 1172, 1221 “ Ewing 1138, 1151,1494, 1521 “ Foran 1079 “ Gardner 1534 “ Godfrey 1162 “ Griswold 1235,1243, 1250, 1283 “ Hale 1182 “ Hitchcock, 1175, '1199, 1226, 1495,1530 “ IIoadly, 1062, 1073, 1142, 1147, 1204,1247, 1261, 1492. “ Horton 1090, 1153 “ Humphreville, 1159, 1173,1197, 1247, 1493, 1519, 1525. « Hunt, 1079, 1169, 1191, 1196, it Scofield ti Scribner .1065, 1177, 1496 it Sears .1275, 12S4 it Townsend ii Towns ley 1239 it Tuttle, 1066, 1159, 1163, 1175, 1178, 1211, 1244, 1523, 1533. 1252, 1270, a V oris .1134, 1527 a West, 1093, 1170, 1183, 1249, 1268, 1285, 1507. a White of B a Wilson .1153, 1222 “ Woodbury 1219, 1230 “ Young of C 1232, 1263, 1525 1233, 1256, 1276, 1498. INDEX, XV" yeas and nays on amendments to proposition No. 190 : 1061, 1067, 1069, 1221, 1141, 1142, 1145, 1155, 1158, 1176, 1181, 1199, 1212, 1219, 1231, 1236, 1237, 1242, 1245, 1247, 1255, 1259, 1276, 1281, 1287, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1506, 1515, 1537, 1541 final reading of Proposition No. 190, and discussed 1490, 1543 License, petitions, giving to the Legislature full power to regulate, 1661, 1736, 1804, 2094, 2128, 2194, 2228, 2254. Licking County Bar, petitions from 1314 Liquors, spirituous — petition giving to Justices of the Peace final jurisdiction in the sale of 1314 proposition No. 224: in relation to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr. Campbell 2033 proposition No. 226 : in relation to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr. West 2094 proposition No. 228: from Committee on 2163 Lee, Rev. Thomas, prayer by 1566, 1881, 2059, 2094 Library Public, invitation from, to participate in the dedication of the 1596 resolution in response to invitation of the 1597 M McBride, John K., Delegate from Wayne County — appointed on special committee 1844 call leave of absence granted to 1577, 1698 motions made by 1543, 1845 motions to amend by 1296, 1441 petitions presented by remarks by 1441 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by McCauley, John, Delegate from Seneca County — appointed on standing committees 2112 elected to fill vacancy caused by the death of Hon. J. D. O’Connor 1951 leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by oath administered to 1951 petitions presented by 2094 remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 resolutions offered by McCormick, John W., Delegate from Gallia County — leave of absence granted to 1532 motions made by 1432 motions to amend by petitions presented by 1314, 2228 remarks by 1852, 22C7 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Merrill, Ozias, Delegate from Fulton County — leave of absence granted to 1596 motions made by petitions presented by reports submitted by, from Committee on Accounts and Expenses. . .1348, 1416, 1702, 2053 XVI INDEX. Miller, George D., Delegate from Darke County — leave of absence granted to 1516 motions made by petitions presented by 1804 remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Miner, John L., Delegate from Hamilton County — appointed on Standing Committee 1181 leave of absence granted to 1059, 1561 motions made by 1415, 1718, 1803 motions to amend by 1193, 1759, 1980 petitions presented by remarks by, 1150, 1230, 1335, 1420, 1509, 1558, 1638, 1759, 1767, 1883, 1925, 2122, 2151, 2244. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Mitchener, Charles H., Delegate from Tuscarawas County — leave of absence granted to motions to amend by , petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by Mueller, Jacob, Delegate from Cuyahoga County — call leave of absence granted to 1550, 1967 motions made by 1247, 1454, 1635, 1698, 1738, 2065 motions to amend by 1205, 1248, 1319, 1516, 1930, 2079 petitions presented by propositions introduced by 1452, 1635 remarks by, 1065, 1101, 1166, 1241, 1285, 1314, 1319, 1391, 1410, 1425, 1502, 1516, 1518, 1533, 1633, 1648, 1746, 1855, 1931, 2079. reports submitted by, from Committee on Accounts and Expenses. . .1348, 1416, 1629, 1772 Select Committee of One 1518 reports submitted by, from Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 resolutions offered by 1314, 1643 Mullen, Thomas J., Delegate from Adams County — call . leave of absence granted to 1296, 1698, 1881 motions made by motions to amend by 2117 petitions presented by remarks by 1120, 1221, 1223, 1472, 1537 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Miami Coal Company, remarks concerning 1813 Mellish, Rev. T. I., prayer by 1661 Montgomery County, petition from 1568 Moore, Rev. Wm. T., prayer by 1059, 1088 Municipal Corporations — yeas and nays on amendments to Proposition No. 182, 1319, 1322, 1330, 1346, 1347, 1366, 1372, 1391, 1396, 1400, 1429, 1433, 1441. final reading of Proposition No. 182 1489 petition from City Council of Toledo requesting the Convention not to adopt sections 2, 3 and 4, of Proposition No. 182, on. Mr. Steedman 1596 INDEX. XVII Municipal Corporations — Proposition No. 182, an additional Article to the remarks by — Mr. Baber 1-120, 142G, 1430 “ Beer 1338, 1385 “ Bishop 1361, 1402 “ Blose 1370 “ Burns 1324, 1412, 1427, 1434 “ Carbary 1365, 1431 “ Chapin 1377 “ Clark, of Ross 1320, 1438 “ Cook 1424 “ Cowen 1305, 1401 “ Cunningham 1322,1331, 1352 “ Dorsey. . .1349, 1364, 1375, 1391, 1401 1417 “ Ewing .... 1341, 1343, 1378, 1383, 1393 1406, 1408. u Freiberg 1411 “ Gardner 1325, 1431 “ Griswold, 1306, 1323, 1359, 1412, 1424 “ Hale 1360, 1374 “ Herron 1305,1344, 1422 u Hitchcock 1432 “ Hoadly. .1288, 1317, 1342,1362, 1393 1402, 1406, 1420, 1435, 1452. “ Humphreville 1373,1403, 1423 “ Hunt 1354 “ King 1299 Constitution 1288 Mr. Layton 1327, McBride Miner 1335, Mueller 1319, Neal Okey Page 1336, 1367, Pond 1346,1426, Powell. . .1301, 1315, 1319,1323, 1381. Pratt 1327,1414, Root 1298, Rowland 1328,1339, Sample 1328, 1334, Sears Smith, of Highland Smith, of Shelby Townsend 1296, 1309, 1317, 1339,1353, 1373,1381, 1387, 1421. Tuttle, 1321, 1332, 1369, 1397, 1425. Voris 1389, West, 1310,1330, 1337, 1343, 1355, White, of Brown Wilson 1340, Young, of Champaign 1368, 1426 1441 1420 1425 1307 1382 1394 1438 1333 1429 1358 1413 1345 1389 1379 1316 1326 1410 1416 1433 1361 1387 1396 N Neal, Henry S., Delegate from Lawrence County- call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by call for the yeas and nays by leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by 1521, 1589 1348 1521, 1545 1218, 1445, 1499, 1935, 2262 petitions presented by 1629 remarks by, 1157, 1195, 1254, 1307, 1443, 1460, 1499, 1521, 1536, 1574, 1602, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1952, 1954, 2109, 2263. reports submitted by, from Committee on Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by . . Nevins & Myers, letter from, with reference to report of the Committee on Education 1566 o O’Connor, John D., Delegate from Seneca County — leave of absence granted to.. 1150 remarks on the death of, by — Mr. Okey 1655 Mr. Cook 1658 “ Albright 1657 “ Neal 1659 “ Hitchcock 1657 “ Voris 1659 report of the Select Committee on the death of 1655 resolutions on the death of 1567, 1655 “ “ expenses of funeral of 16S0 XVIII INDEX. Okey, William, Delegate from Monroe County — leave of absence granted to ... . .1550, 1577 motions made by motions to amend by 1246, 1382 petitions presented by remarks by ^.1655, 1759, 2259 reports submitted by, from Select Committee on the death of Hon. John D. O’Connor 1655 resolutions offered by 2256 O’Connor, J. D. Hon. resolutions expressive of regret and sorrow, at the death of 1567, 1655 Committee appointed to take charge of the funeral ceremonies 1567, 1655 resolutions requesting the President to notify the Governor of the death of 1576 remarks by, Mr. Okey, 1655. Mr. Albright, 1657. Mr. Hitchcock, 1657. Mr. Cook, 1658. Mr. Neal, 1659. Mr. Voris, 1659. resolution directing the President to issue a certificate in payment of the funeral ex- penses of 1679 p Page, Henry F., Delegate from Pickaway County — leave of absence granted to leave to record vote 1314 motions made by motions to amend by 1367, 1429, 1430, 1738, 1784, 1795 petitions presented by 1243 propositions introduced by 1702 remarks by, 1170,1186,1367, 1394, 1529,1003,1758,1778, 1784, 1790, 1882, 1949, 2063, 2068, 2166, 2179, 2210, 2280. reports submitted by, from Committee on Education 1367 resolutions offered by Pease, Anson, Delegate from Stark County — call excused from voting 1141 leave of absence granted to 1138 motions made by 2186 motions to amend by 1769 petitions presented by 1138, 1981, 2059 remarks by, 1111, 14S9, 1527, 1610, 1626, 1664, 1676, 1718, 1748, 1769, 1774, 1811, 2021, 2042, 2092, 2115, 2135, 2149, 2157, 2214, 2284. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Piiellis, Charles, Delegate from Madison County — call leave of absence granted to 1661 motions made by motions to amend by 1236, 1486, 2133 petitions presented by 1922 remarks by 2151 reports submitted by, from Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1737 resolutions offered by Philips, William H., Delegate from Hardin County — leave of absence granted to 1181, 1516, 1577, 1S44, 2163 motions made by . motions to amend by petitions presented by INDEX. xix remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1871 Pond, Francis B., Delegate from Morgan County — appointed on Special Committee 2058 call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by 4473 jgjg call for the yeas and nays by chairman of the Committee of the Whole 4288 1296 leave of absence granted to 1661 ? 2228 motions made by 1145, j 3 - 8j 140g) 1606 ’, 2053 motions to amend by 1147, 1230, 1427,1460, 1546, 1552, 2033, 3049 petitions presented by remarks by, 1174, 1210, 1230, 1234, 1282, 1346, 1426, 1438, 1447, 1472, 1486, 1520, *1527 1546, 1552, 1557, 1632, 1638, 1804, 1810, 2034, 2119, 2124, 2134. reports submitted by, from Com. on Corporations other than Municipal 2060 2112 resolutions offered by ’ Powell, Thomas W., Delegate from Delaware County- call for a division of the question leave of absence granted to motions made by 1176, 1396,1455, 1680, 1704,' 1734, 2011, motions to amend by : . 1155, 1181, 1319, 1682, 1707, 17S7, 1976, petitions presented by 4577 242s remarks by, 1140, 1174, 1176, 1186, 1240, 1261, 1274, 1301, 1315, 1319,’ 1323, 1333, ’l381 ’ 1454, 1549, 1554, 1589, 1633, 1637, 1683, 1715, 1744, 17S7, 1806, 1828, 1891,1948 1960,2096, 2132, 2171. ’ reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1192 1059 2229 2049 2254 Pratt, Albert M., Delegate from Williams County- appointed on Special Committee call of the House demanded by call for the yeas and nays leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by, 1327, 1404, 1414, 1424, 1429, 1485,1555, 1564, 1786, 2021, 2051, 2076, 2136, 2150, 2173. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 2054 1180 1423 1804 1428, 2021 1572, 1592, 1611, 1631, 1677, 2054 Preamble and Bill of Rights— report of Committee on, discussed remarks by Mr. Baber “ Blose . 1753, 1756, 1768 “ Burns “ Bishop 1749, 1783, 1787 “ Carbery “ Clark, of Jefferson. “ Cook 1755, 1765 “ Cunningham “ Dorsey “ Foran “ Freiberg “ Godfrey 1736 Mr. Gurley 4774 “ Hale 1794 “ Hoadly 17 50, 1779 “ Horton 1738, 1760 “ Jackson 4774 “ Minee 1759, 1767 “ Mueller g “ Okey " 1759 “ Pa ge 1758, 1778, 1784 ' “ PE iSE 1748, 1769, 1774, 1790 “ Powell 1744, 1787 “ Pbaw 1786 XX INDEX. Mr. Boot. 1760, 1788 Mr. Waddle 1742, “ Watson. . 1737, 1744, 1773, 1782, “ West 1740, “ White, of Brown 1760,1768, “ Young, of Champaign 1282, 1701, 1702, 1736, 1804, “ Bowland 1745 “ Sample 1778, 1782 “ Sears 1746 “ Tuttle. . . 1761, 1763, 1777, 1786, 1792 “ Steedman 1749 Petitions. ( See names of members and subjects . ) Property, private for public uses discussed Prayer by, Bev. John G. Adams “ Bev. J. T. Boyce “ Bev. I. S. Cantfield “ Bev. Samuel W. Clark “ Bev. S. A. Collins 1568, “ Bev. Bicliard Gray “ Bev. O. A. Hills “ Bev. Eben Halley 1181, 1213, “ Bev. A. J. Hobbs 2128, 2163, 2194, “ Bev. W. H. French “ Bev. Thomas Lee 1566, 1881, 2059, “ Bev. T. J. Mellish “ Bev. Wm.T. Moore 1059, Bev. M. Scott 1378, 1452, 1488, 1516, “ Bev. I. C. White 1918, 1951, 1981, 2018, Private property for public uses ; ; Prohibition, petitions to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors presented by, Mr. Blose US 8 “ Byal • • • 2228 « Coats 1629, 1981 Gurley • 1596 Kerr 1629 McCormick 1314, 2228 Bussell, of Meigs 1844, 2254 Smith, of Highland 1982, 2254 Townsley 1550, 1922 Weaver 1516 Proposition No. 228, to amend Article 6. Mr. Herron. Public Debt and Public Works. No. 206 • Proposition No. 217, a substitute for section 6, Article 8. Mr. Ewing Mr. Clark, of Jefferson. 1488, 1596, Doan Herron King Bickley Shaw 1416, 1844, Phellis Waddle 1348, 1488, 1568, Woodbury 1566, 1750 1785 1762 1789 1747 2095 1348 1844 1314 1156 1629 1416 2254 1243 2228 1772 2094 1661 1088 1550 2054 2097 1213 1568 1921 1736 1088 2018 1922 1922 2094 1982 1922 1568 E Beilly, James W., Delegate from Columbiana County- call of the House demanded by • • 1698 call for the yeas and nays by 150o > 22 J 7 excused from voting 12<9 leave of absence granted to 1<3(i motions made by 1505, 1698, 2253 motions to amend by J petitions presented by 1 282 > 1314, 1416, 1452, 1566, 1680 remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on J udicial Department resolutions offered by Bickly, John J., Delegate from Franklin County- appointed on Special Committee leave of absence granted to motions made by 2058 1059,1318,1736, 2254 INDEX. XXI motions to amend by petitions presented by 1059, 1088, 1122, 2094 remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 a “ “ Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith 2256 resolutions offered by Root, Joseph M., Delegate from Erie County- appointed on Standing Committee 1734 call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question by 1762 call for the yeas and nays by 1762, 1787 leave of absence granted to 1348, 1981, 2269 motions made by 1180, 1348, 2053 motions to amend by 1161, 1238 petitions presented by 2094 remarks by, 1061, 1066, 1077, 1148, 1168, 1200, 1203, 1219, 1228, 1236, 1238, 1283, 1298, 1349, 1358, 1709, 1788, 1895, 1958, 2169, 2241, 2255. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Rowland, Charles W., Delegate from Hamilton County — call for a division of the question leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by remarks by, 1328, 1339, 1413, 1499, 1509, 1652, 2027, 2069, 2074, 2120, 2156. 1215 1378 1366, 1532, 1565, 1700, 2144, 2193 1348 1663,1733, 1745, 1870, 1894,1924, 1987, Russell, Daniel A., Delegate from Meigs County — call for the previous question leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Russell, Charles C., Delegate from Muskingum County — leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Railroads— petitions to prevent the giving of passes. Steedman Reporting and Publication — resolution offered by Committee on Rules and Order of Business — notice of intention to offer substitute for Rule 69, by Mr. Beer motion to amend Rule 69, taken from the table amendment to Rule 69, offered by Mr. Cowen notice of the introduction of an additional Rule 70 notice of suspension of Rule 64 1287 1550, 1918, 2128 1844, 2254 1207, 1250, 2088, 2116 1348 1243, 2228 1921 .... 1966 1214, 1348 .... 1452 1455 1703 1773 XXII INDEX Revenue and Taxation — Proposition No. 220, to amend Article XLI, by Mr. Page 1702 “ 204, a substitute for Article XII, from Committee on 1982. 206G remarks by — Mr. Baber tt Barnet . 2050 a Beer 2176 a Bishop .1991, 2067, 2085, 2170 tt Burns C ( Carbep.y .2025, 2049, 2087, 2091 tt Chapin .... . 2012, 2018, 2142, 2153 (i Clark, of Ross. 2126, 2132, 2174 tt Coats tt Cook tt Cowen (t Cunningham . . it Dorsey 1994 , 2012, 2035, 2038, 2048 a Foran tt Godfrey 2137 a Griswold ... 2023, 2046 K Gurley 2013, 2038 it Hale 2037 it Hitchcock tt Hoadly 2003,2119,2164 tt Hostetter tt Kraemer It Johnson tt Miner yeas and nays on amendments Mr. Mueller. 2079 “ Mullen 2013 “ Page 20GS, 2166, 2179, 2185 “ Pease 2021, 2041, 2092, 2135, 2149 “ Pond 2119,2124,2134 “ Powell 2020, 2034; 2132, 2171 “ Pratt, 2021,2041, 2051, 2076, 2136, 2150, 2173. “ Root 2169 “ Rowland, 1987, 2027, 2069, 2074, 2120, 2148, 2156. “ Russell, of Meigs 2088, 2090 “ Sample 2014,2029 “ Scofield 2156 “ Smith 1983, 2043, 2077, 2122, 2167 “ Townsend, 2026, 2069, 2132, 2140, 2151 “ Tuttle 2157 “ Tyler 2009, 2015, 2153 “ Voris 2040, 2140 “ West 2020, 2077, 2082, 2151 “ White of Brown “ Wilson 2088 “ Woodbury 2045 “ Young, of Champaign 2160 2078, 2079, 208S, 2093, 2159, 2186 INDEX, XXIII 171 172 176 192 i AUTHOR. TITLE. PROCEEDINGS. " West Directing the Committee on Accounts to devise and report a plan for negotiating a loan on the credit of the State, &c 1214 5 Mueller ... Authorizing the Committee on Accounts to su- perintend and control the Contingent Fund.. 1314 3 Kerr Relative to reporting cost of Stationery to each delegate Relative to sine die Adjournment . 7 Tyler ,1348, 1631 1550 lfifil 3 Hunt Relative to vesting the right of property in Fairs and Expositions, acquired for such pur- poses by taxation ) Hitchcock Relative to the death of Hon. John D. O’Connor Notifying the Governor of the death of Hon. John D. O’Connor 1567, 1655 ) Tlper Powell Thanks of the Convention be returned to the City Library Carbery Relative to the amount of Stationery used per capita Ewing That the report of the Committee on Ac- counts and Expenditures be transmitted to the General Assembly Mueller Relative to Adjournment until Tuesday 1643 Shaw Thanks of the Convention tendered to the Sis- ters of Charity 1661 > Hitchcock Instructing the President to draw a certificate to defray expenses in the removal of the re- mains of Hon. J. D. O’Connor 1679 1703, 2065 1704 1703 1772 1844 t Voris. Leaves of Absence revoked after April 2d . . Relative to holding evening sessions Relative to Senatorial Apportionment Committee appointed on Communication from Secretary of State ] Hoadly ) Dorsey. ) Hitchcock . Campbell Relative to the Veto power > Kerr Relative to requesting the State Commissioner of Common Schools to report certain statistics 1844 5 Albright Relating to Binding the Debates and Proceeding 1966 t Clark, of Jefferson. . > Cunningham Instructing the Committee on Schedule to report a plan for separate submission of Articles of the Constitution Relative to the deaths of Ex-President Millard 1971 Fillmore and Hon. Charles Sumner 1 Carbery Relative to compensation to the Secretary for extra services 'Pond Instructing the Committee on Accounts to re- port the probable expenses necessary to con- clude the labors of the Convention 2018 ! Godfrey In respect to the memory of Hon. Edmund Smith > Kerr Relative to informing the Governor of the death of Hon. Edmund Smith > Cunningham Returning thanks to the Authorities of Cin- cinnati . Ewing Requesting the President to transmit to the Governor the probable termination of the Convention ! Scribner Instructing the Secretary to transmit to the Gov- ernor the report of the Committee on Ac- counts and Expenses, &c 1314 1666 1597 1680 1773 1844 1967 1980 2054 2061 2061 2164 i l \ I XXIV INDEX. S Sample, William, Delegate from Coshocton County — call excused from voting 1917 leave of absence granted to 1532 motions made by 1796 motions to amend by 1172 petitions presented by remarks by, 1067, 1190, 1251, 1255, 1267, 1328, 1334, 1345, 1444, 1473, 1483, 1497, 1526, 1731, 1778, 17S2, 1796, 1809, 1857, 1940, 1955, 1963, 2014, 2029, 2057. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Scofield, W. E., Delegate from Marion County — call of the House demanded by call for a division of the question leave of absence granted to motions made by *. motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by from resolutions offered by 1142 1282 1180, 1213, 2178 1194, 1242, 2144 1150, 1194, 1196, 1241, 2156, 2179 Scribner, Charles H., Delegate from Lucas County — call call for the yeas and nays 1219 excused from voting 1141 leave of absence granted to 1213, 1568, 2054 motions made by 1505, 2065 motions to amend by 1144, 1158, 1176, 1198, 1200, 1545, 2118 petitions presented by 1171 remarks by 1177, 1196, 1496, 1557, 1953 reports submitted by, from Committee on Reporting and Publication 1966 r “ “ Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 “ “ “ “ “ “ Judicial Department 2229 resolutions offered by 2164 Sears, John D., Delegate from Wyandot County — call leave of absence granted to 1661 motions made by 1451, 2117 motions to amend by 1246, 2118 petitions presented by remarks by . . 1246, 1275, 1284, 1341, 1389, 1453, 1604, 1622, 1627, 1649, 1746, 1953, 1978, 2117 reports submitted by, from Committee on Education 1367 resolutions offered by Shaw, John, Delegate from Clermont County — leave of absence granted to 1088, 1122, 1550, 1568, 1844 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1416,1702, 1844, 1981, 2018 'remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1661 INDEX. XXV Shultz, Emanuel, Delegate from Montgomery County — leave of absence granted to 1550, 1568, 1702, 1981 motions made by motions to amend by petitions nresented by 2128 remarks by reports submitted by resolutions offered by Smith, John A., Delegate from Highland County — call leave of absence granted to 1181 motions made by 1704, 2159, 2186 motions to amend by 1428, 2045, 2156 petitions presented by 1736, 1982, 2254 remarks by 1379, 1704, 1983, 2043, 2077, 2100, 2122, 2155, 2167, 2251, 2273, 2288 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Smith, Edmund, Delegate from Shelby County — leave of absence granted to 1347, 1661 motions made by petitions presented by 1881 remarks by 1315 reports submitted by, from Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1737 sudden death of 2054 Steedman, James B., Delegate from Lucas County — appointed on Standing Committees 2112 call of the House demanded by 1865 leave of absence granted to 2054 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1596, 1921 remarks by 1652, 1749, 1854, 1933, 1945, 2241 reports submitted by, from Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith 2256 resolutions offered by Schedule, Resolution No. 179 instructing the Committee on. Mr. Dorsey 1703 Schools, petition against the proposed restriction of tax levies for 1702 “ (See Education.) Scott, Rev. W., prayer by 1378, 1452, 1488, 1516, 1550 Secretary of State, communication from 1698 resolution in reference to 1772 committee appointed on memorial of 1795 Remarks by — Mr. Bishop “ Cunningham “ Hitchcock . . “ Pond “ Sample “ West 1809 1808 1805 1804, 1810 1809 1807 Mr. Campbell “ Hill “ Pease “ Powell . . “ Tuttle . . 1807 1804, 1811 1811 1806 1812 Sisters of Charity, of the Good Samaritan Hospital, resolution of thanks to 1661 Smith, Edmund, Hon. resolutions expressive of regret and sorrow, at the death of 2054 committee appointed to take charge of the remains of 2058 report of committee 2256 XXYI INDEX, Remarks by — Mr. Cunningham 205G Mr. Dorsey “ Godfrey 2054 “ Hill “ Sample 2057 “ West Stationery- reports of the Committee on investigation of the excessive use of Standing Committees. ( See committees.) Suffrage, women’s petitions relative to, presented by, Mr. Shaw, 1702. Mr. Thompson, 1243. Mr. Albright, 2128. Mr. Yoris, 1629. Proposition No. 222, woman’s suffrage, Mr. Baber Remarks by — Mr. Baber 1845 Mr. Rowland “ Cunningham 1864 “ Sample “ Foran 1865 “ Young, of Champaign “ Powell 1828,1948,1960 “ Cook “ Yoris 1816, 1946 “ Ewing “ West 1867 “ Philips “ Carbery 1874 “ Sears “ Dorsey 1862 “ Page “ Hitchcock 1958 T Thompson, Thomas F., Delegate from Warren County — call leave of absence granted to 1348, 1549, 2094, 2128, motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1243, 1795, remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Townsend, Amos, Delegate from Cuyahoga County — call Chairman of Committee of the Whole excused from voting ..... leave of absence granted to 1550, motions made by, 1121, 1295, 1416, 1504, 1615, 1691, 1704, 1787, 1795, 1865, 1875, 1898, 1982, motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by, 1066, 1140, 1296, 1309, 1317, 1326, 1339, 1353, 1373, 1380, 1386, 1421, 1431, 1661, 1665, 1711, 1889, 2026, 2069, 2098, 2108, 2132, 2140, 2222. reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Townsley, Thomas P., Delegate from Greene County — leave of absence granted to 1844, motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by 1550, 1702, remarks by reports submitted by resolutions offered by Tripp, James, Delegate from Jackson County — call leave of absence granted to 2055 2056 2054 1629 1804 1922 1871 1963 1841 1968 1978 1871 1979 1949 2163 1951 1917 2227 2129 2183 2094 1072 1239 1922 1239 1156 INDEX. XXVII leave to record vote 1282 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Tclloss, Richard S., Delegate from Knox County — leave of absence granted to motions made by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Preamble and Bill ol Rights 1737 resolutions offered by Tuttle, George M., Delegate from Trumbull County — call for a division of the question 1225, 1725 call leave of absence granted to 1532, 2054, 2128 motions made by 1207, 1248, 1515, 1957 motions to amend by 1163, 1792 petitions presented by remarks by, 1159, 1163, 1175, 1177,1211, 1244, 1252,1270, 1320, 1332, 1369, 1397, 1410, 1425, 1458, 1473, 1487, 1495, 1523, 1533, 1537, 1761, 1763, 1777, 1786, 1792, 1904, 1956, 1957, 2062, 2157, 2282. reports submitted by, from Committee on Corporations other than Municipal. . .2060, 2112 “ “ “ “ “ “ Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors 2163 resolutions offered by Tyler, A. H., Delegate from Henry County — call leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to] amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from, resolutions offered by Taxation — petitions praying the, of Church property 1213, 1282, 1566, 1680, 1804, 1951, 2094, 2129 exemption of Church property from, 2079. Yeas and nays on, 2088. petitions praying for the, of dogs 1243, 2129 Toledo — petition from 1596 Trustees of Townships — resolutions from the Legislature concerning the election of 1213 1702 1155, 1181, 1643, 1701 1140, 1662, 1918, 2009, 2015, 2152, 2214 1550 v Van Valkenburgh, J. S. ; Delegate from Sandusky County — appointed on Special Committee 2050 leave of absence granted to. 1549 motions made by 1701 motions to amend by petitions presented by 1702 remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations 1442 “ “ “ Select Committee on the death of Edmund Smith 2256 resolutions offered by XXVIII INDEX Van Voorhis, Daniel, Delegate from Muskingum County — leave of absence granted to 1661 motions made by motions to amend by ... . petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Voorhes, Carolus F., Delegate from Holmes County — leave of absence granted to 1661 motions made by motions to amend by ... petitions presented by . remarks by reports submitted by, from Com. on Corporations other than Municipal 2060, 2112 resolutions offered by Voris, Alvin C., Delegate from Summit County — call of the House demanded by 1121, 1504, 1787 ■call for a division of the question 1720, 1721 •expressions of regret by 1488 leave of absence granted to 1313 •motions made by, 1122,1171, 1442, 1455, 1533, 1550, 1596, 1614, 1099, 1704, 1736, 1971, 1980, 2008. motions to amend by 1214, 1430, 1480, 1577, 2014 petitions presented by 1122, 1629 remarks by, 1134, 1214, 1389, 1416, 1419, 1455, 1471, 1527, 1600, 1659, 1663, 1810, 1946, 1973, 2014, 2040, 2062, 2110, 2140, 2226, 2229, 2262. reports submitted by, from Committee on Corporations other than Municipal. . . 2060, 2112 resolutions offered by 1663, 1702 Veto power, resolution in reference to. By Mr. Campbell 1844 Votes, on recording 1918 w Waddle, William G-., Delegate from Harrison County — leave of absence granted to 137S, 1532, 2163 motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by.... 1059, 1088, 1348, 1488, 1568, 1661, 1736, 18S1, 1922, 1981, 2059 remarks by 1239, 1240, 1742, 1750 reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations 1442 “ “ “ “ Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1737 resolutions offered by Waite, Morrison R., Delegate from Lucas County and President of the Convention — Watson, Cooper K., Delegate from Huron County — leave of absence granted to • 2094 motions made by 1786, 1795 motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by v.,.1177, 1737, 1741, 1744, 1767, 1773, 1782, 1785, 2114, 2116 reports submitted by, from Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 1736 resolutions offered by . . INDEX. XXIX Weaver, Samuel P., Delegate from Putnam County — leave of absence granted to motions made by motions to amend by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1213, .1577, 1844 1516. Wells, Harvey, Delegate from Vinton County- leave of absence granted to West, William H., Delegate from Logan County — call of the House demanded by call excused from voting 1141, leave of absence granted to motions made by 1171, 1207, 1288, 1303, 1304, 1490, 2053, 2061, motions to amend by 1210, 1322, 1337, 1372, 1419, 1433, 1479, 1481, 1496,1725, 1794, petitions presented by propositions introduced by. remarks by, 1093, 1159, 1168, 1170, 1173, 1174, 1183, 1201, 1236, 1249, 1250, 1268, 1277, 1285, 1310, 1322, 1330, 1337, 1342, 1355, 1433, 1437, 1439, 1466, 1507, 1713, 1762, 1807, 1856, 1867, 1896, 2020, 2054, 2077, 20S2, 2104, 2151. reports submitted by, from Select Committee of One on Legislative Department “ “ “ “ Committee on Judicial Department resolutions offered by 1505 1155. 1516 2229 1945 1122 2094 1498 2229 1214 White, Chilton A., Delegate from Brown County — Chairman of Committee of the Whole 1736 leave of absence granted to 1442, 1981 motions made by motions to amend by 1768 petitions presented by remarks by 1272, 1361, 1760, 1768, 1789, 1892. reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations 1442 resolutions offered by White, Alexander, Delegate from Hocking County — leave of absence granted to motions made by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on County and Township Organizations resolutions offered by 1442. Wilson, David M., Delegate from Mahoning County- call leave of absence granted to 1059, 1532, 2094 motions made by motions to amend by 1457 petitions presented by 1156, 1378 remarks by 1153, 1222, 1340, 1387, 1449, 1928, 1953, 2087 Woodbury, H. B., Delegate from Ashtabula County — leave of absence granted to 1314, 1S04 motions made by motions to amend by 1219 petitions presented by 2094 XXX INDEX, remarks by 1219, 1230, 1597, 1605, 2045, 2101 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by 1918, 1951, 1981, 2018, 2054 1629 1088 Young, John H., Delegate from Champaign County — call leave of absence granted to 1543, 1867, 1981, 2228 motions made by motions to amend by 1158 petitions presented by remarks by 1232, 1263, 1368, 1396, 1453, 1525, 1747, 1841, 2160 reports submitted by, from resolutions offered by Ygung, William J., Delegate from Noble County — leave of absence granted to 1156 motions made by petitions presented by remarks by reports submitted by, from Committee on Accounts and Expenses 1416, 1629, 1772, 2053 resolutions offered by Yeas and Nays — on amendments to the Bill of Rights 1758, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1779, 1792, 1795 “ “ * to Prop. No. 194. Apportionment and Representation, 1606, 1613, 1618, 1627, 1680, 1692, 1695, 1720, 1725, 1727,- 1728, 1730, 1731. on amendments to Prop. No. 189. County and Township Organizations, 147S, 1483, 1485, 1548, 1560, 1643. on amendments to Prop. No. 203. Elective Franchise, 1916, 1917, 1930, 1931, 1936, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1971. on agreeing to Prop. No. 211. Female Suffrage 1976, 19S0 on agreeing to amendments to Prop. No. 190. Legislative Department, 1161, 1166, 1176, 1199, 1212, 1216, 1219, 1224, 1225, 1231, 1236, 1237, 1242, 1245, 1247, 1255, 1259, 1276, 1281, 1287, 1528, 1537, 1541, 1543. on agreeing to amendments to Prop. No. 182. Municipal Corporations, 1319, 1322, 1330, 1346, 1347, 1366, 1372, 1391, 1396, 1400, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1441, 1490, 1496. on limiting debate 1454, 1455 on amendments to Prop. No. 204. Revenue and Taxation, 2021, 2047, 2078, 2079, 2088, 2093. on giving the veto power to the Governor, 1061, 1067, 1069, i 141, 1145, 1146, 1500, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1514, 1515. White, Rev. J. C. — prayer by Woman Suffrage — petition in relation to. (See Suffrage ) Workhouse — invitation to attend chapel service at T ■ . _ THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Kicicly, Waddle, King, Foran, Scribner, West. 1059 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH DAY OF THE CONVENTION. FORTY-THIRD DAY OF THE ADJOURNED SESSION. Wednesday, February 4, 1874. HALF-PAST NINE O’CLOCK A. M. The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- journment. Prayer by Rev. Wm. T. Moore, of the Cen- tral Christian Church. The Roll was called, and 76 members answer- ed to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Messrs. Kerr, Powell, Coats, and Rickly were excused for absence yesterday. Leave of absence was granted to Mr. Wilson, until Friday next; to Mr. Andrews, until Monday next, and to Messrs. Godfrey and Miner, for an indefinite length of time. The Journal was read and approved. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. Mr. RICKLY presented the petition of J. W. Baldwin, M. A. Daugherty, and 66 other mem- bers of the Bar of Franklin county, which The Secretary, by request, read, as follows : To the Honorable, the Constitutional Convention of Ohio: The undersigned, members of the Bar of the county of Franklin, respectfully represent, that the business in the courts of said county requires more time than can be given to it under the present arrangement, whereby the same is embarrassed and delayed to the great detriment of the public and individuals. We, therefore, respectfully request that the county of Franklin be made a separate Common Pleas District, with two judges to be elected therein, as is piovided for the counties of Montgomery and Lucas. J. Wm. Baldwin, Henry C. Noble, Otto Dresel, G. G. Collins, J. T. Holmes, H. B. Albery, L. J. Critchfield, James Watson, Gilbert H. Stewart, E. P. Sharp, J. S. Parcels, W. H. Dunnick, J. D. Sullivan, G. F. Castle, A. Andrews, B. F. Stage, H. J. Wylie, Ivor Hughes, Thos. E. Taylor, Horace Wilson, C. Loewenstein, P. B. Case, R. C. Hoffman, Jas. F. Hoffman, W. T. Wallace, P Lewis Mark, John G. Mitchell, Geo. L. Converse, George J. Atkinson F. W. Merrick, A. H. Fritchey, A. W. Graham, David Keller, M. A. Daugherty, J. H. C. N. Olds, S. W. Andrews, W. R. Rankin, L. English, John C. Groom, John D. Burnett, E. L. Taylor, R. P Woodruff, G. W. W asson, J. C. Richards, J. E. Wright, Benj. Woodbury, R. B. Smith, L. G. Byrne, F. F. D. Albery, E. L. DeWitt, T. J. Duncan , Henry T. Chittenden, Chas. E. Burr, jr., D. W. C. Jones, D. C. Wax, John G. McGuffy, E. P. Evans, B. F. Martin, E. Clay Briggs, Lot L Smith, Geo. S. Peters, George Driggs, , Wm. C. Stewart, Geo. K. Nash, J. S. Matheny, G. J. Marriott, Jos. H. Outhwaite, Jos. H. Geiger, Heitmann. Which was referred to the Committee on the Judicial Department. Mr. WADDLE presented the petition of John Stewart, and 121 other citizens of Belmont county, for an acknowledgment of Almighty God and the Christian Religion in the Consti- tution of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. KING presented the petition of John Cameron, and twenty-six other citizens of Jef- ferson county, which The Secretary, by request, read as follows : To the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio: The undersigned, citizens of the State of Ohio, respect- fully petition your honorable body : 1. That the following clause in the Bill of Rights, in our present Constitution, viz. : “Religion, morality and knowl- edge being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly * * * * to encourage schools and the means of instruction,” may be allowed to remain unchanged. 2. That such religious acknowledgments may be placed in the Preamble of the Constitution as shall indicate that this is a Christian Commonwealth, and shall place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages of the govern- ment on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. FORAN presented the petition of Joseph Gillson, and forty other citizens of Cleveland, which The Secretary, by request, read as follows : To the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio: The undersigned, citizens of Ohio, desirous of main- ing the impartiality of our government toward all its citizens, do earnestly protest against such amendments to the Constitution as are asked for, by petitions now under consideration in your honorable body, praying lor the in- corporation of certain religious opinions and beliefs into the Constitution of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would beg leave to state to the Convention, that, supposing it to be improper to hold a place upon the Stand- ing Committees, I would ask to be excused from Standing Committees upon which I have hereto- fore been appointed. [Cries of “ agreed.”] Mr. SCR1RNER. I move that the Chair be requested to fill the vacancies in the manner prescribed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. WEST. I would suggest, Mr. President, that until the Lucas county election, the matter might be deferred. They might possibly want the gentleman elected there to fill the position. 1060 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Humphreville, Beer, Barnet, Hitchcock, Alexander. [105th [Wednesday, ORDER OF THE DAY. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I move that the Convention now proceed to the special order of the day, Proposition No. 190. Which was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The pending question is upon the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to section 18. The Secretary will read the amendment to section 18. The Secretary read : The amendments to section 18 are in line six, if, after such reconsideration, read “ three- fifths;” also, in line eighteen, after the word “law ” read, “ If any bill presented to the Gov- ernor contain several items of appropriation of money, he may object to one or more of such items, while approving of the other portions of the bill. In such case, he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects; and the appropria- tions so objected to, shall not take effect. If the General Assembly be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill origi- nated, a copy of such statement, and the items objected to shall be separately reconsidered. If, on reconsideration, one or more of such items be approved by three-fifths of the members elected to each House, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. All the provisions of this section, in relation to bills not approved by the Governor, shall apply to cases in which he shall withhold his approval from any item or items contained in a bill appropriating money.” In line thirty- four insert the words “ three-fifths.” Mr. BEER. I offer an amendment, now, to this amendment. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands the practice to have been established, that the Convention will first go over the amendments proposed by Committee of the Whole, then re- turn to the beginning, and take up the entire Proposition, section by section, and that amend- ments to the text, reported by the Committee on the Legislative Department, would not be in order until the Committee have first passed upon the amendments. Mr. BEER. I desire to propose an amend- ment to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole. The PRESIDENT. That is in order. Mr. BEER. The amendment that I propose, Mr. President, is, to strike out the amendment commencing in the eighteenth line, and ending in line twenty-nine. The PRESIDENT. I would state to the gen- tleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], that the first question would be upon lines six and eight— the words “three-fifths.” The question will be upon inserting, in lines six and eight, the words “ three-fifths.” Mr. BARNET. I have said nearly all I have to say upon these proposed amendments. I am opposed to three-fifths. I am opposed to any- thing beyond what we understand to be a Con- stitutional majority veto, or a majority of all the members elected, after the exercise by the Governor of his veto power. And I now rise tor the purpose of saying that I must vote against this whole proposition, if such a propo- sition, or such propositions as are instituted here shall remain, to-wit : three-fifths. I know, sir, that there are fewer objections to three- fifths than two-thirds, but this does not satisfy my mind. I am not for setting up the one- man power anywhere in this country. We are Democrats in principle; we are believers in the sovereignty of the people; we believe in their equality ; we believe in their absolute con- trol; and I do not see any connection with the principle as established here and acknowledged everywhere in these United States, as well as in the State of Ohio, why we should set up the power of one individual to thwart our action ^upon important business — upon every descrip- tion of business that may be under the section of law passed by the Legislature. I think it is inconsistent, inharmonious with the great rad- ical acknowledged principle of the sovereignty of the people. Now, that we may have the benefit of his views in regard to a measure that may come before him in the shape of a bill or resolution, and enlighten the Legislature by his views, I do not object to. I concur in it, and I am willing to accept it in that form. But after we have thus received the benefit of the views of the Governor, I hold that the Legislature ought, by its Constitutional majority, to have the ability to decide. I cannot see how he is more the representative of the people than the Representatives themselves, who are elected and sent up for the very purpose of legislation. I cannot see how a reference from the decisions thus obtained can fairly be said to be referred back to the people in the shape of re-election. Why, there are a thousand things that enter into the question of the re-election of Governor. There are as many entering into the question of the re-election of Representative, and when we decide, we decide in reference to all these matters, and not to this particular matter of the veto question. Now, I do not wish to go on taking the time of this Convention. I wish merely to state my objections to this matter, and to say that I feel myself compelled to vote against this provision, unless it can be amended in the manner I have indicated. I will, how- ever, accept it cheerfully, if “three-fifths” be stricken out and “a majority” instituted in its stead. For the purpose of testing that, I move to strike out “three-fifths” where it occurs in the sixth line, and insert “majority.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I ask for a division of the question. The yeas and nays were demanded. Mr. ALEXANDER. Is the question now upon sustaining the Report of the Committee of the Whole? The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon concurring in the Report of the Commit- tee of the Whole to strike out “two-thirds” and insert “three-fifths.” Mr. VORIS. I think the Chair mistakes the proposition. He says “two-thirds.” It is to strike out “three-fifths.” The PRESIDENT. The question is on strik- ing out two-thirds and inserting three-fifths. The Chair will state the question exactly. The Committee on the Legislative Department re- ported a proposition containing the words two- thirds. “if, after such reconsideration, three- Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 4, 1874.] Carbery, Yoris. Hitchcock, Tuttle, Albright, etc. 1061 fifths of the members elected agree to pass the same, it shall be,” etc. The Committee of the Whole have amended by striking out the words, “two-thirds,” and inserting, “three-fifths.” The question now is on agreeing to the Report of the Committee of the Whole, and a division of the question being asked for, the question now is upon striking out “ two-thirds.” Mr. CARBERY. I understand the Conven- tion is called on to act on the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, which contains the words, “three-fifths.” It strikes me the ques- tion is on striking out “ three-fifths.” The PRESIDENT. No; the question is on concurring in the Report of the Committee of the Whole, which struck out “ two-thirds,” and inserted “ three-fifths.” Mr. YORIS. Then, as I understand the pro- position, if the Convention refuses to strike out, it will be a concurrence on the part of the Con- vention in the Report, as it came from the Standing Committee. It will be a disagree- ment if they refuse to strike out all recom- mendation by the Committee of the Whole. I simply want to say one word, and that is this : that if we attempt at all to confer the veto power upon the Governor, we ought to make it effective. Two-thirds will do this, or will much more tend to do this, than the three-fifths vote. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I suppose the amend- ment to strike out does not agree to the Report of the Committee of the Whole, but leaves it afterwards to be filled by whatever matter may be determined by the Convention. The PRESIDENT. I would state to the Convention that, by mistake, the word two- thirds was not printed in brackets, as it should have been. Mr. TUTTLE. If the Convention should determine to adopt the Report of the Commit- tee of the Whole, so far as striking out is con- cerned, would it then be in order to move the amendment of the amendment of the Commit- tee of the Whole by inserting something else in place of three-fifths? The PRESIDENT. It would be competent for the Convention to fill the blank as it chooses. Mr. ALBRIGHT. I move the vote be taken also on the word three-fifths where it occurs in line thirty-four. The yeas and nays were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 37, nays 37, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Alexander, Barnet, Bishop, Blose, Bosworth, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cunningham, Doan, Ewing, Gurley, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Johnson, McCormick, Miller, Mullen, Neal, Pond, Rick- ly, Rowland, Scofield, Shaw, Shultz, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsley, Tripp, Tuttle, Waddle, Watson, West — 37. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Bannon, Beer, Burns, Byal, Caldwell, De Steiguer, Foran, Gardner, Greene, Herron, Hill, Hoadly, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Jackson, Kerr, McBride, Mitehener, Mueller, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Powell, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Scribner, Sears, Smith of Highland, Townsend, Tulloss, Tyler, Yan Voor- his, Voris, Weaver, Woodbury, Young of Cham- paign, President — 37. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BEER. I offer the following : The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Crawford moves to strike out the amendment, commencing in line eighteen, and ending in line twenty-nine, and insert the following sub- stitute. The Secretary will read. The Secretary read : “The Governer shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of ap- propriation disapproved shall be void, unless re-passed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto.” Mr. HOADLY. Is this a motion to strike out the provision which gives the Governor power to veto separate items of an appropria- tion bill ? Mr. BEER. Will the gentleman allow me to answer? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. BEER. It does not. It accomplishes what is sought to be accomplished by the amendment already in italics, but it accom- plishes it with about one-fourth the words. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman be so kind as to explain how this is done — how it ac- complishes it by striking out that which was put in for the purpose of accomplishing it? Mr. BEER. I cannot do that without read- ing the amendment. Mr. HOADLY. Then I will ask the Clerk to read it again. The Secretary read the amendment. Mr. ROOT. I ask a division on striking out. Mr. POND. It appears to me, there is nothing to strike out. If the gentleman will notice, this is simply a recommendation to move this substitute. The PRESIDENT. This is a substitute for the amendment. Mr. ROOT. It is attempted to amend the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole. It does not make any difference what- ever offer is to amend an amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is right. Mr. ROOT. One word. I do not suppose it is of the least consequence to anybody but my- self for what reason I will vote to strike this out; but, as I am in favor of vesting a clearly defined veto power in the Executive, as this proposition now stands, I am opposed to the amendment made in Committee of the Whole. If we were to have annual elections of members of the House, we could very well afford to dis- pense with the veto power. We got along well enough without it, under the first Constitution. Now, everything is to be biennial. Nothing is to happen oftener than once in two years, not even county or township elections. I think, that if the Representatives were to go up from their districts every year, it would be better ; but, as it is, I think safety and good policy re- quire there should be a veto power in the exec- utive. Now, what is proposed ? It looks very specious ; it is, seemingly, a very well devised thing, and it may be. I do not say it is bad, on general demurrer ; but, I do say, it would not require any high skill to get round it. It is in violation of principle, as I regard it. Whilst I would give to the Executive the power to suspend the operation of the acts of the legislative de- 1062 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [105th Root, Hoadly. [Wednesday, partment, when the action had been hasty, and inconsiderate, and evil, in his opinion, and give time for consideration, and careful examination, I never would clothe him with anything that had the semblance of legislative power. He might, he ought, as I think, to have, under the Constitution, the suspension— if I may he al- lowed the expression — the suspension power, for putting on brakes when you are running too fast, or too carelessly, over a dangerous road, short curves, or bridges, yet I never would allow him to have any part in framing laws. Now, this provision substantially vests him with legislative power. It gives the opportunity for dickering between the Governor and the two Houses. I do not say that all such opportuni- ties would be improved ; but I never knew one neglected, yet. It, furthermore, gives the op- portunity of dickering between either House and the Governor. Well, we have never had an opportunity to witness the effects of this, for the Governor never has had any such power in this State. We have never had an opportunity to ob- serve to what extent this evil may be carried. I will illustrate very briefly : There is a project for creating a new court. Some counties fancy them- selves insufficiently provided for. They want a superior court. Well, I reckon, as a general thing, that ought not to be provided — it is not best. One man, or member, is very anxious to have horses, that Morgan did not get, paid for, or has got some other axe to grind. Look here, my friend, just vote to put in my horse, or vote to putin my anything else. The Governor will veto it, but it will satisfy my constituents. Now, I wish you to vote for my bill. Never mind ; we know how the Governor feels about | it. And you may want a little moonshine for I your constituents ; now, I will go for that and ! the Governor will take care that no harm is j done. The bill passes somehow and goes to the Governor. Now, I do not know who we are going to have for Governors exactly; but I do not believe in giving anybody, high or low, good or bad, an opportunity — for as often as you give an opportunity you hold out a tempta- tion to do wrong. “Yes, you put something in there that I do not mean to stand, and I shall spot that.” “Well, now look here Governor, just between us.” Sir, you make your Legis- lature and your Executive liable to the suspi- j cion of dickering, of doing dirty work, because j you put it in their power to do it. And men who fail in getting what they want, or who 1 have something put upon them that they do not j want, are ready enough to assert, or ready enough to believe that the very worst means possible, have been used to attain that end. So I say that I think this a most dangerous reser- vation. It is investing the Executive with a power which he should never hold in any wise. It is not for the Executive to dictate to the Leg- islature. k ‘llere, if you had passed this bill so and so, or left out this item, or put in that item, it would have been fixed up to suit me and would have been all right.” Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. ROOT. Certainly, sir. Mr. HOADLY. Does not the argument the gentleman is making apply to every matter subject to the veto power of the Governor as well as to appropriations ? Would it not be an objection against the veto, in regard to other biils as well as to appropriation bills ? Mr. ROOT. I am opposing merely the wrong application of the veto power. I am not op- posed to it as applying to that or any other bill where the veto stops or prevents the act. Whether they have the veto power or not, I do not believe in depositing in the Executive Department this mighty power to be peddled about and dealt out in small doses, for an infant under four or five years of age, only five drops, and for an adult possessing full strength, forty drops. That is the way this thing will work. Whilst I admit that it looks as if there was something great and good in it, whilst I admit that gentlemen who favor this provision do so from the very best motives, while others may be right and I wrong, I think it dangerous where the principle to which I have referred is involved, and therefore we ought to have a veto power that will effectually veto an act, or none at all. Clothe the Executive with the veto power and make him responsible for it, or else let us not have it at all. Mr. HOADLY. The plan of granting to the Governor the veto power, as to separate items in an appropriation bill, I concede, may place the Governor, sometimes, in this position : tha£ by putting together, in one nominal item, in an j appropriation bill, things that have no proper | connection with each other, the Governor will | be forced, in order to defeat apart of that appro- i priation, to veto the whole item. Thus, for in- I stance, if there be in the bill an appropriation ! of two hundred thousand dollars for the sup- port of benevolent institutions, the Governor may be of opinion that nothing should be ap- propriated to a particular institution, or that there ought not to be any doubt that there should be a denial of an appropriation for a , particular institution ; therefore, he may be I compelled to veto the whole item, in order to strike out the part which has been improperly joined to the other portion. Or, to take a case that would be more plain, perhaps, in its application : there may be united, j in one item, an appropriation of three hundred I thousand dollars, to pay two distinct claims against the State ; as, for instance, for repairs of the Miami canal, and repairs of the Ohio canal, or repairs of the Miami canal, and Morgan raid claims. If the Legislature place the Governor in opposition to its work in this manner, he will have to put his foot down, if he has the power of veto, for the very reason of such im- proper action of the Legislature, in joining j together, in one item, two matters that ought | to be separated into two items. I submit ! that if that is an objection, it is as well an objection to the whole veto power; because, that is to say it is an objection to the kind of a veto which my friend from Erie [Mr. Root], favors. The President of the United ! States has the right to veto an entire bill, and : not by items. He must veto all or none, and is thus "exposed to the very danger under discus- ! sion. In like manner, the Governor, unless he has the severable veto, will always be in the j position of not being able to separate a single ; item, but be compelled to allow the whole of ! the improper appropriation or defeat the entire THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, Hoadly, Root, Burns, Hitchcock. 1063 Day.] February 4, 1874.] bill. Now, I submit that the idea of a several veto ought to be incorporated in this provision in some form. I have not compared the amend- ment of the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer], with that adopted by the Committee of the Whole, to see which is in the most fitly chosen form of words. I understand the object of both is the same; but I submit that, inasmuch as the appropriation bill consists of the union in a single bill of a series of matters that have no connection with each other, except that they may be united in a common reservoir by the Legislature, the power should be granted to the Governor — if we are to give him the veto power at all — of selecting items and vetoing them sep- arately. Why, Mr. President, we have a pro- vision in our present Constitution which re- quires that every law shall relate to a single subject, and that subject properly described in the title. But, practically, we defeat that by the fact that an appropriation bill is called a single subject, and described as an appropria- tion bill in the title, whereas, the truth is, as we all know, that every appropriation bill con- tains disconnected items, or matters divided apd isolated, or which might be very properly isolated or disconnected from each other. Mr. ROOT. I wish to inquire of the gentle- man whether this would have an evil effect upon the Legislature when they are putting in any of their shoddy appropriations? Whether it would be understood as injuring their appro- priation bill by it ? Mr. HOADLY. I have had no experience as a member of the Legislature, therefore I can- not speak from experience, but from observa- tion. I say I think the evil exists, but that it will exist all the more if the Governor be compelled to choose between killing the whole appropria- tion bill, or letting some obnoxious items go through. Just like the matter in which Gen- eral Garfield was tested, and failed at the last session of Congress. His excuse in voting for the back salary grab was, that he could not have voted against it without killing the whole ap- propriation bill, and, being Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and respon- sible for the bill, he had not the courage to ac- cept the alternative of killing the whole bill, as he ought to have done, instead of voting for what he knew to be wrong. And he voted to adopt it against his own conscience, because to kill that item, would be to kill the whole bill. And that is exactly the position in which the Governor will sometimes be placed, if he have not a several veto. Mr. ROOT. Will the gentleman allow me a further question ? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly ; with pleasure. Mr. ROOT. Do you believe one word Gen- eral Garfield says about it ? Mr. HOADLY. Yes, I do. I do , sir — I an- swer the gentleman directly. I do not know General Garfield personally. I have never seen him in my life. But I have always been told that he', was a man whose word was as good as his bond — an honorable gentleman. Having been educated on the Western Reserve where he lived, and in his vicinity, I have always heard him spoken of as a man of pure life and honest purposes. I deplore the fact, Mr. Presi- dent, that die had not the courage to embrace the one grand opportunity of his life — for such it was — to put that whole infamous bill under his feet. The timidity which he showed on that occasion, is a precedent which teaches me that the same fearfulness may be shown on the part of our Legislature, and argue that the Governor should have the right to choose in such matters, and to separate and veto these items that may be wrong. Why, suppose there should be sent to the Governor an appropria- tion bill containing, as one item, an appropriation for the Morgan Raid claims, which may be voted for by members to get the appropriation bill through. The Governor says : “I do not believe the people of Ohio are bound to pay this Mor- gan raid bill,” yet he is under the necessity of sending the whole bill back according to the theory of my friend from Erie [Mr. Root] with his veto upon it, or allowing this objectionable item to remain in the bill. Therefore, it seems to me, we did right in Committee of the Whole in inserting this provision, and it ought to be retained in the section somehow or other. My friend from Crawford [Mr. Beer] may be right, in saying that his amendment provides for the same thing with fewer words. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], to strike out all after the word “law” in line 18 to the end of line 29, and insert the substitute he has proposed. The gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root] demands a division of the question to strike out and insert. Mr. BURNS. I do not know that it would make any difference in the vote, and I do not desire to put myself in antagonism to the Chair ; but is that really the question ? Is it not a sub- stitute for the amendment of the Committee of the Whole? The PRESIDENT. The motion is to strike out the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, and insert what the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] proposed. Mr. BURNS. It is simply, as I understand, a substitute for the amendment of the Com- mittee of the Whole. The PRESIDENT. That is it; and it, of course, involves striking out the amendment of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. BURNS. Suppose the Convention should vote to strike out the amendment of the Com- mittee of the Whole, that simply leaves it a blank. The PRESIDENT. It strikes out that amend- ment, and that would be, under the rule which the Convention has adopted, equivalent to dis- agreeing to the amendment. Mr. BURNS. If the Chair will allow me, this is notan amendment of the Committee of the Whole which strikes out something and puts in something ; it is simply an addition. Mr. HITCHCOCK. It occurs to me, Mr. President, that the motion of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] is to strike out, not from the Article or section a provision in that Report, but to strike out the amendment of the Committee of the Whole. It is to strike out that matter recommended by the Committe of the Whole, and insert some matter instead of that they have recommended. Mr. BURNS. I do not understand how it is possible to strike out and insert, because the 1064 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Burns, Barnet, West, Hoadly, Beer, Hunt, Root, etc. [105th [Wednesday, amendment of the Committee does not propose to strike out anything from the original Report. It is in addition to what is in that Report, and it is simply an amendment proposed by the Com- mittee of the Whole for the action of this Con- vention. Now, the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] offers a substitute for that amend- ment: if a member of this Convention votes “aye” on this proposition, while he disagrees to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, by that vote he does not insert or agree to the amendment of the gentleman from Craw- ford [Mr. Beer]. Now, as I take it, as the question is put as a substitute for the amend- ment of the Committee of the Whole, the mem- ber who votes “aye” not only agrees to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, but agrees to the amendment or substitute of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. Mr. BARNET. Objection is made, that a member may disagree to the action of the Com- mittee of the Whole, and yet not be willing to accept the substitute. Now, the vote to strike out, if the motion prevails, will be to disagree to the amendment made by the Committee of the Whole, and, then, the question would be, whether we should substitute anything in its stead ? Mr. BURNS. I am not able to see, Mr. Presi- dent, how you can strike out anything that has not been put in. Now, this amendment of the Committee of the Whole stands here in the form of an amendment, nothing more nor less than a simple recommendation of the Commit- tee of the Whole that this amendment be in- serted. That is all there is of it. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman allow me to submit a proposition ? Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Mr. WEST. Could we not strike out one- half of this provision and put in something else ? Mr. BURNS. You could put in something else. Mr. WEST. But could we not strike out one- half and insert something else? Mr. BURNS. I suppose we could. Mr. WEST. Could we not strike out one- half, or the whole of the amendment, which the Committee of the Whole proposes, and insert something else? You do not strike out the proposition, but the Report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. BURNS. You disagree to it. The PRESIDENT. The motion is to strike out. The Chair thinks the question is clearly divisible; because the Convention may agree to the Report of the Committee of the Whole and not agree to the substitute. The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that the motion of the gen- tleman from Erie [Mr. Root] is in order. The question will be first on striking out the amend- ment of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOADLY. I desire to inquire of the mover of this substitute — the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer] — what other reason there is for the substitute, except that it expresses the same thought more briefly, or whether there is anything more in it? Mr. BEER. That is all it accomplishes; but it accomplishes it by using only about one- fourth as many words to convey the same ideas. Mr. ALEXANDER. I desire to say a word or two in regard to this matter. Mr. HUNT. If the gentleman will allow me a moment; I wish, Mr. President, to understand, correctly, parliamentary procedure, in this matter. If I understand rightly, if the Con- vention votes to strike out this matter recom- mended by the Committee of the Whole, the question will recur upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] ; and if that substitute is not adopted by the Convention, after this matter has been stricken out, section eighteen, up to and including the word “ law,” in the eighteenth line, will stand as the action of the Convention upon the prop- osition, as reported by the Committee on the Legislative Department. Mr. ALEXANDER. I was about to remark in regard to the substitute The PRESIDENT. If the gentleman from Van Wert [Mr. Alexander] will allow the Chair one moment : The Chair did not under- stand whether the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt] addressed his question to the Chair. Mr. HUNT. I simply want to understand the matter. The proposition now before the Convention is the motion of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], to strike out all of section eighteen, after the word “ law,” in line eighteen. If that motion is agreed to, the question will then recur upon the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Crawford' [Mr. Beer] ; and if that substitute is voted down, then section eighteen, up to and including the word “ law,” In line eighteen, as reported orig- inally, will stand as the action of the Conven- tion upon that section. The PRESIDENT. That is the opinion of the Chair. Mr. ROOT. I wis'b that the gentleman from Van Wert [Mr. Alexander] would grant me one moment. Now, I do not want to interfere with other gentlemen’s b usiness. The gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] is here in his place; I need not say that he is in very feeble health; I need not remind the Convention that he, some days since, gave notice of a substitute that he intended to move for a part of this sec- tion, and the Convention was so courteous as to order that to be printed. Now, I do not think that, even if the substitute offered by the gen- tleman from Crawford [Mr. B$er] should be voted upon, it would preclude the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] frohu offering his proposed substitute. However, wihile I do not commit myself in that — I am inclined to be op- posed to his substitute— but, while I may say that, I asked for a division here, stf> that we might first settle the question on striding out, and then let the Convention choose w.hat they will put in the place of it. If they are satisfied with the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], let them saT so; if not, let us take somebody else’s substitute, or, take none at all. Mr. ALEXANDER. As I was abcmt pro- ceeding to remark, in view of the explanations given by the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer], as to the effect of his amendment, I am inclined to think that if it effects, prec isely, the same thing that is effected by the amendment as adopted by the Committee of the vi/hole, that 1065 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 4 , 1874 .] Alexander, Mueller, Scribner, Humphreyille. the Committee on Revision will be able to fix that up very satisfactorily; that if it means, precisely, the same thing, they would be per- fectly justified in making the change of verbi- age that would make it about one-third its present length. I am not very certain as to its effect, not having had an opportunity of exam- ining it; and, if pressed to a vote before ad- journment, will not have, probably. As to the amendment of the gentleman from Wyandot [Mr. Sears], adopted by the Commit- tee of the Whole, allowing the Governor to veto items of the appropriation bill, it occurs to me, that is one of the most important matters in this Legislative Article; that it is one we ought to see to; that it is due the people that their Gov- ernor may have, at least, some voice in the passage of their appropriation bills. It is a fact, that we cannot, ought not, shut our eyes to, that the members of the Legisla- ture, from the various parts of the State, con- tract with each other, and by reason or means of these contracts, get appropriation bills passed that ought never to have been passed. To il- lustrate what I mean, and I will not refer to any specific case, take the delegation from Cuy- ahoga. An appropriation is wanted or re- quired, for something or other, for that particu- lar locality — it may be, possibly, a relief bill for some of their constituency — and the county of Hamilton, possibly, is in the same condition, and, possibly, the county of Lucas, and other interior counties. Now, when neither of these appropriation bills, standing alone, by itself, could receive a majority, yet, by this contract — this “You help me, and I will help you” — appro- priation bills are passed which never ought to be passed ; which are simply corrupt in them- selves; which are simply wrong; which, if each item were left to stand upon its own basis, would never have been passed. Now, give the Governor the power of vetoing each or any of these items, and the attention of the State is called to it. And it occurs to me, that allowing the Governor to have a veto upon the items of an appropriation bill, is one of very great value to the State; one that we ought not to ignore; one which, I think, has been extremely popular with our constituents; one, indeed, which they will do themselves the honor to approve. This is not a mere matter of form. It is a matter of substance. It is a matter that is to pass through the life of this Constitution, either for its weal or its woe — one which, 1 think, the necessities of the case have demonstrated, be- yond question. That there is corruption abroad in the land, is so well demonstrated there is no need of refuting it here, and our people will not vote appropriations to encourage these fast proclivities. The tendency of the age is to be fast. The tendency of our legislative bodies, everywhere, is to be extravagant, and we will have performed a very great service to the peo- ple of our State if we will do something that will retard this headlong course towards profli- gacy. I, therefore, hope and trust that there will be a suitable check put upon our Legis- lature, in the passage of these appropriation bills. Now, then, if there be an appropriation bill that is really meritorious — one that commends itself to the Legislature — it will recommend itself to the members from all over the State alike; it will not be local in its character. If it does not so commend itself to the sense, the judgment and the discretion of the legislative body, it shows that it lacks merit. I hope that we will not recede from this principle, which we have adopted in Committee of the Whole. I shall, therefore, for the reason that it can be remedied by the Committee on Revision, vote against the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], and for that reason only. Mr. MUELLER. Before*the question is put, I would like to say a word. I think, myself, that it is a matter of great importance that this question be correctly decided. I hold that this question under consideration is not divisible. It cannot be divided, for this reason : Suppose this Convention agree to strike out the amend- ment which is sought to be amended, what is there left before the Convention ? By striking the first amendment out, there will be nothing left to which the second amendment may at- tach. The link between the original section and the second amendment would be thereby removed, leaving the second amendment sus- pended in the air. If the Convention agrees to strike out what is — or, better, refuses to concur in— the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, then the time has arrived to offer this other, or second, amendment; but if offered before, it can only be voted upon : Whether it should take the place of the former amendment, without dividing the question ? There is, there- fore, no possibility of any division in this case; and for the purpose of avoiding coming in con- flict with well established parliamentary rules, I think the Chair ought not to permit a division of a question that is clearly indivisible. Mr. SCRIBNER. I must say that I most heartily concur in the view of the matter as stated by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Mueller]. I cannot understand how the ques- tion is divisible. It appears to me that it is simply upon agreeing to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], for the amendment of the Committee of the Whole; that is the question. If, as suggested by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], it is proposed to amend that amendment, it is another thing. If we propose to amend the amendment by striking out a part, and inserting new mat- ter, there would be a question, of course, divis- ible; but here, the Committee of the Whole proposes an amendment to the section, and the question is upon agreeing to that, first; then the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], pro- poses a substitute; the second question, then, is upon agreeing to that substitute. I do not see how it is possible that there can be a division of this question, though there can be of the ques- tion to strike out and insert. But both the gentlemen who differ with me, I acknowledge, are my superiors in parliamentary law. The PRESIDENT. In order to save time, it may, perhaps, be better to put the question on the substitute; but the Chair is of the opinion that the question is fairly divisible. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. As this is a par- liamentary question, it is, perhaps, not debat- able ; but, as the Chair has been so kind and 1066 THE LEG ISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [105th Humphreville, Burns, Townsend, Tuttle, Root. [Wednesday, indulgent in permitting suggestions, I will offer one. The Committee of the Whole proposed an amendment to section 18; the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], proposed a substitute for that amendment; now, what condition does that place the question in ? Strictly, in parliamentary law, no such thing as a substitute is known. It is a sort of American growth that has sprung up to avoid certain rules. What, then, is the question? You cannot substitute the amend- ment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], until you get rid of the amendment pro- posed by the Committee of the Whole. It re- solves itself into this, then : that it amounts to a motion to strike out and insert ; and if I under- stand anything about parliamentary law— and, I admit, I do not know very much — the President was right in his ruling that the question is one that is divisible; because, it is a question on striking out and inserting, in sub- stance. Mr. BURNS. Will the gentleman [allow me a question ? Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Yes, sir; and if I can answer it, I will. Mr. BURNS. Suppose that the bill was un- der discussion now, in the Convention, and the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphreville], should offer the amendment that has been offered by the Committee of the Whole ; sup- posing that the gentleman from Medina offered this amendment to section 18, and suppose that the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] arose, and offered his as a substitute for your amend- ment — not to amend your amendment, but as a substitute for your amendment — now, what would the question be ? Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The question would be upon striking out my amendment, and in- serting the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford. Mr. BURNS. But yours is not yet inserted. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Certainly not; but it is under consideration; and in some way must be got rid of to make room for his amend- ment. Mr. BURNS. Very well, I do not agree with the gentleman from Medina, at all. The Com- mittee of the Whole offers an amendment, and the gentleman from Crawford offers a substitute for that; then they are both presented to the Convention, and the Convention says which they will take. The first question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford. If they take that, as a matter of course, this dies; and if they do not take that, then the question is upon this. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I do not so under- stand the effect of the amendment. It is in substance, though, perhaps, not strictly in form, a question upon striking out and inserting. Mr. TOWNSEND. I submit to the gentle- man from Medina [Mr. Humphreville], that the difficulty is, perhaps, upon striking out that which has never been voted in. It is merely proposed for the Convention to adopt. I take it, Mr. President, that it will be necessary to vote upon the adoption of the amendment pro- posed by the Committee of the Whole, but if we vote directly upon the proposed substitute of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], it would be that this substitute should take the place of that amendment, and nothing is strick- en out, and there is no question to be divided. Mr.TUTTLE. It seems to me that here is real- ly a great tempest in a teapot. A question of the order of business has arisen, and that question is, whether the question should be first put so as to take the sense of the Convention upon striking out, or upon, in some way, getting rid of the proposition of the Committee of the Whole, and then acting upon the proposition of the gentle- man from Crawford [Mr. Beer], to put some- thing in; or, whether we should keep the proposition of the Committee of the Whole in reserve, and act upon the proposition of the gentleman from Crawford, first. Now, I would have my own idea as to what was a proper course and true order of that matter ; but the Chair has decided upon that subject — a matter proper for it to do — and nobody has taken an appeal from it. Now, what, nevertheless, do we hear or have we heard, but half-a-dozen ar- guments, not directed to the expediency or pol- icy of the proposition of the Committee of the Whole, but to the question of what is the proper order of business; and, nevertheless, as though it was an objection to striking out; as though it was a criterion for us to vote by, when we come to vote, whether we will strike out, or ignore, or disregard, or get rid of the proposi- tion of the Committee of the Whole. It seems to me that now the question is not, what would be the best or most orderly course of business? the question is, whether or not we like the proposition of the Committee of the Whole better than we do that of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], or better than we do any other that we may desire to put in its place. If we do, we want to vote against striking out; if we do not, then we want to vote in favor of striking out, so as to have that in. This is the question, I take it, that we are to consider here ; and the question that we have been arguing here so much with regard to the proper course of business, has now nothing to do with it — that is, as it seems to me, Mr. President. Mr. ROOT. I wish we had attended a little more to what was said by the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock]. If I understood him rightly, it made this thing very plain. Now, let us see: The question now is: How are we to get along ? It is a question of order, as I understand; at least that lies at the bottom, that is the foundation of the difficulty. Now, let us put to ourselves one or two questions and see where we will come to. Is there any doubt in the world, that the gentleman from Craw- ford, [Mr. Beer], was perfectly in order, when he proposed to strike out the whole of the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, to strike it all out, and insert other matter in place of it in that form ? Is there any doubt, that any member upon this floor has the right to demand a division of the question, so that we shall vote first upon striking out? If there is, I would like to see it made manifest by the usual sign. Why, sir, there is no doubt about it at all, and it is all in order; the Chair put the question right. It is one of those ques- tions, whether right or wrong, that it is more important whether they are decided promptly than how they are decided, for it is all goat’s 1067 DayJ THE GOVERNOR’S VETO POWER. February 4, 1874.] Rowland, Barnet, Sample, Scribner, Hoadly. wool, and I think that goats never have any wool. Mr. ROWLAND. I wish to say, Mr. Presi- dent, that I believe the decision of the Chair was right; and I trust that the Chair will ex- ercise his prerogative and stop this debate upon the question, and we will have a vote. MEMBERS. “Agreed; agreed.’’ The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state the question. The Committee of the Whole have made a Report, and in that Report have pro- posed an amendment; it is now proposed to strike out that amendment, and insert the sub- stitute offered by the gentleman from Craw- ford, [Mr. Beer] : upon that, the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Root], has demanded a division; the Chair decided that the gentleman from Erie was in order and that this division can be made; the question, therefore, will be upon striking out. Upon which the yeas and nays were de- manded. Mr. BARNET. I call for the reading of the substitute. The Secretary read the substitute, which is as follows : The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of the appropriation disapproved shall be void, unless re- passed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto. The yeas and nays 'were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 40, nays 34, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Bannon, Barnet, Beer,Blose, Burns, Campbell, Carberv, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Gardner, Hill, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Humphre- ville, Hunt, Johnson, Kerr, McCormick, Muel- ler, Mullen, Neal, Pond. Powell, Rickly, Root, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Scofield, Shaw, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Townsley, Tripp, Tuttle, Waddle, West— 40. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Alexander, Bishop, Bos- worth, Caldwell, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Foran, Greene, Gurley, Hale, Herron, Hoadly, Horton, McBride, Miller, Mitchener, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pratt, Sam- ple, Scribner, Tulloss, Tyler, Van Voorhis, Vo- ris, Watson, Weaver, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President— 34. So the motion to strike out was agreed to. Mr. SAMPLE. I regard this as, by very far, the most important provision connected with the conferring of the veto power upon the Governor. It has been so recently introduced that, I think, it has not had that consideration which the importance of the provision requires. I think it would be premature for this Conven- tion, now, to proceed to exercise their judgment in passing upon its adoption. If it be adopted, as I understand, it becomes the action of the Convention. Its adoption now, in these pro- ceedings, I understand, will be a declaration of this Convention in favor of it; and whether it will be open to amendment, or not, I am not prepared to say. Mr. SCRIBNER. I would suggest, that agree- ing to this amendment will not make it a part of the Constitution, unless inserted in it by another vote. Mr. SAMPLE. But, if it be adopted now, it will be adopted, as I understand it, by the Con- vention, as a subject which is to become a part of the Constitution. If adopted into the Consti- tution, so far, it becomes a matter that, I sup- pose, will be placed before the Convention in such a form as to be either rejected or adopted as a part of the Constitution. So that, it seems to me, Mr. President, that it is a matter of so much importance that the Convention should consider this proposition carefully, beforeadopt- ing it, and before taking any action upon it. It may be all right. I am not prepared to say that it is not; but I am prepared to say that it ought to be right before it is acted upon by the Con- vention, so as to place it in such a situation as that the Convention may be embarrassed in get- ting rid it, if it should not be found to be cor- rect. I think there is much more importance to be attached to this provision than any other pro- vision conferring this power upon the Governor. In matters of ordinary legislation, it may be less desirable that the Governor should possess this power ; but, in matters of this kind, where responsibility can be thrown upon the Governor in reference to every single provision in an ap- propriation bill, and where the three distinct representatives of the popular will, created by the Constitution, and elected by the people, are required to exercise a supervisory care upon every provision which goes into an appropria- tion bill, I think it is a matter of very great importance that the right of review by the Gov- ernor should be conferred, if not in reference to any other matter, whatever. Now, it is no encroachment, as has been assumed, here, upon the exercise of the popular will. Especially is this so in reference to appropriation bills. The public have not any very great interest, ordina- rily, in appropriation bills, other than to have them regulated by the [proper principles, and limited to proper amounts. And there, cer- tainly, can be no danger in requiring every act appropriating the money of the people — every single act appropriating any sum, for any spe- cific purpose, out of the treasury of the State — to be submitted to each House, and require specific action upon every item of a private ap- propriation by each House ; and to require of the Governor the duty of scrutinizing every item in an appropriation bill, and passing upon it, and determining whether it ought to be im- posed upon the treasury of the State, or not. For these reasons, then, I suggest that this pro- vision ought to be considered with the greatest care, before it shall be adopted; and if it be adopted, it should be in such form as to fully carry out the provision which was contained in that which has been stricken out. If it is so, I am ready to vote for it; but I hesitate to do so under the present circumstances, without fur- ther and fuller consideration. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate allow me to ask whether, if it is rejected, the effect is not going to be to prevent our having this veto ap- plicable to separate parts of an appropriation bill? Mr. SAMPLE. If it is voted down, I suppose that will be the effect of it; and, therefore, the importance of the vote. I am exceedingly 1068 THE GOVERNOR’S VETO POWER. Sample, Hoadly, Barnet, Hitchcock. anxious that it shall go into the Constitution; hut want it adopted by the Convention in such a shape as will make it most agreeable to the Convention, and in the best form to be incorpo- rated into the Constitution. I would not be willing to vote against it, even if put to vote now. I shall vote in favor of it; but I hesitate, because I am afraid it is not as it should be. Mr. HOADLY. I asked the question, be- cause I was afraid that I, with those who think with me, were losing the powerful aid of the gentleman. But I see that we are not. I shall vote in favor of inserting his substitute. I voted against striking out, because I was not then satisfied that it would accomplish the ob- ject sought, although, no doubt, sincerely in- tended to work the same result. It seems to me, upon consideration, it ought to be adopted. If there is any defect in the language, it can be corrected afterwards by the Committee on Re- vision. If there is any defect in explicitness — but I presume there is not — I think, probably, reading it again at the Secretary’s desk would satisfy us all. But what I wish to call the attention of the Convention to, is that now is our last chance, substantially, to put into the Constitution a provision which will enable the Governor — if we are going to have the veto at all — to treat an appropriation bill as being what it really is, a collection of separate provisions, and not an entity by itself, a single thing. Now, if he ought to have the power at all, he should have it as to each particular, separate portion of an appropriation bill; and I hope, therefore, that the friends of the separate veto will not be divided on this proposition, but unite in the endeavor to support the motion of the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer.] The Secretary read : “The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items oi any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items; ana the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of appropriation disapproved shall be void, unless re-passed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the substitute. The yeas and nays are demanded. Mr. BARNET. I regret, extremely, that I have to be placed in the situation that I am. I favor the substitute, if the Article passes in its present shape generally, in regard to the veto. I think it is proper that this substitute should be adopted ; I shall insist on the whole. I very much dislike to vote for it. I do not want to give the thing any advantage in its present shape; and, yet, I should propose to vote to help to mature what seems important. I shall vote for it, but I shall certainly vote against the whole thing when it comes up. Mr. HITCHCOCK. If I understand the gen- tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] correctly, his view is, that whatever maybe the determi- nation of the Convention at this point, it de- cides the question as to the eighteenth section. Am I correct? Mr. HOADLY. Perhaps I put it too strong- ly in saying it decided; but it certainly throws [105th [Wednesday, a very great obstacle, if not a final one, in the way of those who desire to have a joint and several veto. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understand that the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] thought that if the proposition of the gentle- man from Crawford [Mr. Beer] were now to be voted down, that would preclude the possibility of a provision of this kind being inserted in the section. Mr. HOADLY. Not necessarily. There might be a further amendment. Mr. HITCHCOCK. If I am correct, Mr. President, the Convention is now considering the Report of the Committee of the Whole, and can consider no part of this Article until that Report has been entirely disposed of. That Re- port having been disposed of, under the rule which has heretofore been adopted and prac- ticed in the Convention, we commence with the first section of the Article, and go through with it section by section, each several section being open to all the amendments the Convention may desire to make. This rule being absolute, except so far as it might relate to striking out the precise language that has been before in- serted as an amendment, or inserted in the pre- cise language in the section that the Convention has before refused to insert. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate allow a question ? Mr. HITCHCOCK. Certainly. Mr. HOADLY. It will, however, be per- fectly practicable, if the Convention adopt the substitute of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], that the delegate from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], proposes — if I may use the ex- pression without being considered disrespectful to my friend from Crawford [Mr. Beer] — to lick it into a shape that is satisfactory to its friends, if they happen to be in a majority. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I did not hear the re- mark of the gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], and have no idea but that any addi- tional language may be inserted in this section that the Convention wishes ; but that we can- not strike out the language heretofore inserted at the present stage of the proposition. Per- haps I should differ with other gentlemen in my opinion upon the final reading. Until it has been ordered to, and received its final read- ing, we could not strike out the same language inserted, unless including with it such other words as to change the nature of the proposi- tion. Neither by itself can we strike out a part of that language. In order not to be mis- understood, I will say that we can add to that, but anything which the Convention has deter- mined upon at this time to leave out or insert in the same language, cannot be changed at all at this time, but may after the final reading of the proposition. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon inserting the substitute. On this question the yeas and nays were de- manded, taken, and resulted — yeas 60, nays 14, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Alexander, Bannon, Barnet, Beer, Bishop, Bos worth, Burns, Cald- well, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Cun- ningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Greene, THE GOVERNOR’S VETO POWER. Cook, Campbell, Humphreville, Beer, Hunt. 1069 Day.] February 4, 1874.J Hale, Herron, Hill, Hoadly, Horton, Hostetter, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kerr, McBride, Miller, Mitchener, Mullen, Neal, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Scofield, Scribner, Shaw, Smith of Highland, Thompson, Town- send, Townsley, Tulloss, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Voris, Watson, Weaver, West, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 60. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Blose, Coats, Cook, Gardner, Gurley, Hitchcock, McCormick, Mueller, Root, Shultz, Smith of Shelby, Tripp, Tuttle, Waddle — 14. The PRESIDENT. So the substitute is adopted. Mr. COOK. I understand that this does not adopt the amendment. The question was on agreeing to the amendment made by the Com- mittee of the Whole ; the question was to strike that out, and insert the amendment of the I member from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. We are now just where we began ; the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] has been agreed to, in lieu of the Report of the Com- mittee of the Whole. The question now comes on the adoption of this amendment. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is right. The question is upon the adoption of the amendment as amended. On this the yeas and nays were demanded, and objected to. The PRESIDENT. Objection is made. The vote being taken on sustaining the de- mand for the yeas and nays, 21 members voted in the affirmative, and the demand was declared sustained. On this question the yeas and nays were taken, and resulted — yeas 47, nays 27, as fol- lows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Alexander, Bannon, Beer, Bishop, Bosworth, Burns, Caldwell, Carbery, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Greene, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hoadly, Horton, Hostetter, Humphreville, Kerr, McBride, Mil- ler, Mitchener, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Rowland, Sample, Scribner, Shaw, Townsend, Townsley, Tulloss, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Yoris, Watson, Weaver, West, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Barnet, Blose, Campbell, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Foran, Gardner, Gurley, Hitchcock, Hunt, Johnson, McCormick, Muel- ler, Mullen, Neal, Pond, Root, Russell of Meigs, Scofield, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Tripp, Tuttle, Waddle— 27. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. CAMPBELL. I suppose it will not, ac- cording to usage, be strictly in order to offer a substitute; but I will ask that section 18 of the substitute may be considered now. It is doubt- ful whether I shall be able to be here this after- noon. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] requests that section 18 shall be taken up first for consideration. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. I wish to inquire whether these words “three-fifths,” in the thirty-fourth line, were included in the former motion ? The PRESIDENT. They were included in the motion to strike out. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. All right. Mr. BEER. I have no desire to interfere with the expressed wish of the Convention to take up the substitute proposed by the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Before leaving here, Mr. Sears, of Wyandot, left an additional section, which he desired to have offered to this Article. I desire to give notice of his intention to offer it, or to offer it myself, and let the Convention take whatever action they may see fit upon it, and not take up time now. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] yield? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Mr. HUNT. I suggest to the gentleman that he have the section read. It is not in order, I apprehend, at this time, to offer it as an amend- ment to the section. It will be in order here- a ffc er The PRESIDENT. There is, simply, a de- sire to have it read for information, and printed. The Secretary will read. The Secretary read : “The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be law, and the item or items of appropria- tion disapproved shall be void, unless re-passed accord- ing to the iules and limitations prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto.” The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, it will be ordered to be printed and laid over. The Secretary will now read the substitute of the gentleman from Butler [Mr, Campbell], for section 18. The Secretary read : Sec. 18. Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Gov- ernor, at least three days before its adjournment sine die. If he approve it he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall send it to the House in which it shall have originated, and he may either return with it his objections in writing, or he may state them orally to the House; and the House shall then proceed to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. If after such reconsideration, a majority of the members agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other Hou&e, to which, also, the Governor may state his objections either in writing or orally ; and thereupon that House shall likewise reconsider the vote on its passage. If after such reconsideration a majority of the members elected to that House agree to pass the same, >t shall be- come a law. If any bill shal I not be returned by the Gov- ernor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will per- ceive that this substitute as offered by the gen- tleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] is now somewhat amended, in line two and line twelve, by inserting in line two, after the word “Gov- ernor”, the words “at least three days before its adjournment sine die ”, and in line twelve, after the word “not”, by inserting the word “be”, striking out the word “five” and inserting “three.” With those alterations the printed substitute is the substitute now offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] has the floor. Does the gentleman yield ? 1070 THE GOVERNOR’S VETO POWER. [105th Campbell, Hunt, Hitchcock, Root. [ Wednesday, Mr. CAMPBELL. For what purpose? Mr. HUNT. Simply for the purpose of hav- ing an understanding as to the way in which this Report should be considered. I under- stand that we have passed in the Report of the Committee of the Whole all of these sections. The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. HUNT. And that it is now in order to consider, section by section, the proposed amendments as may be desired by the dele- gates ; and upon the suggestion of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell] we now proceed to the consideration of section 18, in preference to the preceding sections. The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. HUNT. Having introduced the propo- sition, I very cheerfully yield to the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? If I understand the gen- tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], Mr. Presi- dent, he suggests that while the consideration of the gentleman’s substitute is now to be had, before a vote is taken upon it, there will be an opportunity for offering amendments to the original section. The PRESIDENT. After disposing of sec- tion 18, the Convention will return to section 1. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I mean section 18. There will be an opportunity to offer amendments to section 18 after the vote is taken. The PRESIDENT. Certainly. The ques- tion is now on the substitute, and the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell] has the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL. It is a great indiscretion on my part to attempt to speak at all to-day, being feeble from indispositiou, and it will be still greater if I attempt to enter into any elab- orate discussion of this great question. If I were in the very best possible condition, phys- ically and intellectually, I should be inclined rather to retire from any active discussion of so great a subj ect. I shall content myself, there- fore, by stating very briefly what are the pecu- liar characteristics of the proposed substitute. It will be observed that it is two-fold. In the first place, it provides that no bill shall be pre- sented to the Governor within three days of the sine die adjournment of the General Assembly. This is one guard against hasty and imprudent legislation. I may safely assert, and will, no doubt, be borne out by the testimony of all gen- tlemen who have served in legislative bodies, that nineteen-twentieths of the hasty, impru- dent, and vicious legislation is carried through in the latter days, and especially in the latter nights of the session. If I may not be consid- ered egotistic I will state a little of the experi- ence I have had myself. It has fallen to my lot — some might call it fortune, but I am inclined to consider it in many respects a misfortune — to have served in the Congress of the United States about eleven years. Two years of that time I had the honor of occupying a very important relation to that body, the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. ROOT. Under the old regulations. Mr. CAMPBELL. And that, too, as sug- gested by my friend from Erie [Mr. Root], under the old regulations, when that Commit- tee had charge of all the revenue bills and all the appropriation bills. Now the labors have been divided between an Appropriation Com- mittee, of which Mr. Garfield is now chairman, and a Ways and Means Committee, of which Mr. Dawes, of Mass., is chairman. In that ser- vice I learned very much of the ways by which bad laws are carried through in the last days and nights of the session ; when many mem- bers are worn out, when but few know really what is going on, when great subjects are re- ferred to committees of conference, and passed upon their report under the screws of the pre- vious question. One of this class was the pro- position to which the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] referred this morning. I allude to the measure which has recently attracted so much attention, namely, the salary bill. Gen. Garfield, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was, at first, opposed to that amend- ment, which had been offered to an appropria- tion bill, against the wise rule of the House that provided that every appropriation bill should be kept entirely clear of all independent legislation. It went, finally, late in the night of the last night of the session, to a committee of conference; Gen. Garfield, chairman of the committee of conference, on the part of the House of Representatives, reported in favor of a concurrence, and the House yielded. I regret, as much as any man, that Gen. Garfield did not remain firm ; but he yielded in order to save his appropriation bill. But that is not all. All the steamship subsidies, and other great steals and grabs are rushed through Congress in a similar way. This salary matter is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the grand robberies that are carried through there the closing nights of the session. I remember very well one im- portant instance of this class, when in less than twenty-four hours before the expiration of the Thirty-fourth Congress, just prior to the in- auguration of Mr. Buchanan, and during the latter hours of the Pierce administration, and at the time when I had the responsibilities that now devolve on Gen. Garfield, there came, on the third day of March, ninety-five amendments in one single appropriation bill from the Senate of the United States, involving millions of dol- lars of appropriation. There was no time to have them printed, scarcely time to have them read at the Clerk’s desk. Deliberation was im- possible. The only way in which they could be prevented from being carried was to have them sent to a conference committee. I had the honor of being chairman of that committee on behalf of the House, and Mr. Hunter, of Vir- ginia, the chairman of the finance committee of the Senate, was chairman of the conference on the part of the Senate. These ninety-five amendments were submitted by the conference committee to Mr. Hunter and myself. I em- phatically told him that if he insisted on the amendments carried by the Senate, they never could pass through the House; and that upon him rested the responsibility of having the Buchanan administration, then coming in on the next day, call an extra session for the pas- sage of the appropriation bills. Mr. Hunter at last told me to take the amendments and decide upon those I would be willing to attempt to carry through the House of Representatives. I did so, and struck out at least two-thirds of them. The conference report was made and 1071 Day.] LEGISLATION DURING CLOSING HOURS OF SESSIONS. February 4 , 1874 .] Campbell, Hunt. carried through both Houses, and under the screw of the previous question, when perhaps not twenty-five members of the House of Rep- resentatives knew the character of these amend- ments. They placed some degree of confidence in myself; the amendments were carried upon that confidence, the appropriation bill was saved, and an extra session avoided. I never knew any of the members, or any member of the press attack those appropriation bills after they were so carried. I could go on and con- sume the attention of the Convention for a long while, giving interesting details of the manner in which in the late night sessions important bills were rushed through without deliberation, and when a majority of members were ignorant of the contents. But gentlemen may say, that has nothing to do with the State of Ohio. I am only giving these facts relative to what is done in the Na- tional Legislature to illustrate what may be done in the Legislature of the State of Ohio. Mr. President, I never but once had the honor — 1 suppose I may venture to call it an honor — of being a member of the Ohio Senate. One session I was sent up there to try to defeat the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. I ran against a pretty hard customer, at the same time, in the person of my friend from Erie [Mr. Root], who came down from the lake shore to have it ratified. Now, as to the last nights of our session, then, there was a great deal of legislation carried through gushingly, on the last two nights. How much of it was good I do not know, for I had not time to examine. I know this, that the Senate was in session through the whole night, presided over very ably, temporarily, by the gentleman from Ham- ilton [Mr. Hunt]. And, as is the case in Con- gress, and other legislative bodies where they hold these night sessions, there was a great abundance of refreshments, and some of a pecu- liar kind, that were not calculated to keep the heads of the members very cool and very level. The Senate was in session through the night, until daylight. I believe then it was that measures were carried through. It might be called hasty or improvident legislation. Nine o'clock was the hour set for adjournment, and I recollect noticing, about half-past eight, that the clock had been stopped — [laughter] — or set back, perhaps both, in order that they might get bills through that were hanging between the two houses, some of which I desired myself to defeat, and others, which I know the gentle- man from Erie [Mr. Root], and others, desired to defeat, although we were of opposite political parties. The Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to start the clock again, and he did so, and when the hour of nine came, the presiding officer was compelled, by the joint resolution, to declare the body adjourned, and I was informed, after- ward, that after the adjournment had been declared, that some of the bills which were required to be signed by the presiding officers, were signed subsequently to adjournment. Mr. HUNT. I desire, at this time, to say a word. Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly. Mr. HUNT. I had the honor of being the Presiding officer of the Senate of Ohio, and I desire, now, to say to this Convention, and through this Convention to the people of Ohio, that there was no bill or joint resolution signed after I had declared the Senate of Ohio ad- journed. Mr. CAMPBELL. Can the gentleman speak of the House of Representatives ? Mr. HUNT. I say nothing as to the House. Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, no; I suppose not. Well, I will ask the gentleman, as long as he has arisen for the purpose of justifying it, whether it did not keep him busy scratching to sign the bills presented just at the very time when he had to proclaim the hour of nine ? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Leave was given the gentleman to proceed. Mr. HUNT. I desire to say, in that connec- tion, that I did go, as presiding officer of that body, to the extreme limit of the hour. If the clock was stopped at that time, I knew nothing of it. But I did know that there was an appro- propriation bill upon which depended the maintenance of the charitable institutions of the State, and that it depended upon my signa- ture to make it a law, and I knew that if that signature were not given, the orphans of the soldiers of the State would suffer ; and it was my last official act to sign that appropriation bill, in order that I might, as presiding officer of that Senate, give them maintenance and sup- port. I was very glad to do it then, and it is an act of which I am proud to-day. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not arraigning the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt]. I sim- ply state these facts as an illustration to enforce the argument I am making — that bad legislation may be run through in these last night ses- sions. If there are railroad rings, or canal rings, or public institution rings, which desire to get money improperly appropriated, in order that they may have fat contracts, they will have their men in the lobbies watching at night to bring in their friends to be there at the clos- ing hour. Now, the first clause of this amend- ment provides that those bills shall be present- ed to the Governor three days before the sine die adjournment. If that branch of it be adopted, the effect will be to give three days for revision. The Gover- nor will have an opportunity to revise these laws that are passed at the closing hours, and see whether they are right. He will have an opportunity of revising, and it will take away this difficulty of hasty legislation. I am op- posed to giving to the Executive any legislative power, affirmatively or negatively. I think it does not belong to that department. I am un- willing to give him anything more than the privilege of presenting such arguments as may occur to his mind against the legislation. I shall not go back into the history of the veto power. I would, if I were well enough and had time enough. I saw a notice in a paper, in tracing the history of our worthy President, went back to the days of the ancient Republic, and showed that this power originated in the tribunes of the people. That was a veto. I do not profess to have a mind so well stored in ancient history as others, but there was where the veto power was claimed by the people. Then the people assembled, and when the Sen- 1072 LEGISLATION DURING CLOSING HOURS OF SESSIONS. [105th Campbell, Hoadly, Townsley. [Wednesday, ate passed laws that were wrong, in a m,ass meeting they pronounced the veto. Under this Constitution we have lived in Ohio for nearly three quarters of a century, and there has been no serious inconvenience resulting to the people. I have not heard of a single man, woman, or child sending here a pe- tition asking us to insert the veto power in this new Constitution. I believe if you were to send out now a member of this body, a cham- pion on the part of the people, and one against it, to any of the rural counties — the counties of Warren, Butler, or Montgomery — and call a mass meeting of the people, and have it discuss- ed two hours, that you would not get one vote out of twenty for it. Now, Mr. President, the second branch of the proposition is to give the Governor some- thing to do. Our Governor has very little power, and I think we are none the worse for that. He has scarcely enough to keep his mind employed. I would require the approval of the Governor to an act by way of holding him re- sponsible for the proper examination of the laws that are passed by the legislative body, and giving him the power to send his reasons to the General Assembly, to both Houses. This proposition is, to some extent, the object of my amendment; but if I may use that expression which is somewhat common in connection with the currency, it is an elastic veto. We hear a good deal of talk about an elastic currency. This may be said to be an elastic veto. If the Governor does not approve the bill that has been passed, he may send it back to the House in which it originated, with his objections in writing, if he sees fit to communicate them in that way; but if he prefers to go before the Senate or House of Representatives and give them orally, it provides that he may do that. Then, Mr. President, after these arguments are made by the Governor, either orally or pre- sented in writing, he will have discharged his duty in sounding the alarm, in calling the at- tention of legislators to the objectionable fea- tures of the bill. And upon them would rest the responsibility, and not upon the Governor. And I believe that we shall never have a Legis- lature where, if there shall have been hasty legislation, or improvident, rash legislation, if their attention is called to it by an oral or by a written argument of the Governor, but what they will retrace their steps and correct them. But I would not give him, as this bill provides, a power equal to eighty-four members. Three- fifths of a hundred and five, I believe, is sixty- three; and three-fifths of thirty-six members of the Senate would be twenty-one. That would make eighty-four. And you propose to give to the Governor, negatively, a voice in the legislation which it requires eighty-four votes to overcome. I will clothe no one man, Mr. President, with such powers as these. I am perfectly willing to give him an opportunity to present his objections to the bill, and then in favor of holding legislators responsible, who are elected by the people for the specific purpose of passing laws. I voted for the prop- osition to make Senators elective every two that the people, when they have elected an un- worthy servant to the Senate or House of Rep- resentatives, may, at the next annual election, leave him out. Mr. HOADLY. The proposition of the del- egate from Butler [Mr. Campbell] “indirect- ly,” is equivalent, I think, and I wish to ask if that be so, to a direct denial to the General Assembly of a right to pass a law within three days before its adjournment, except a law which it passes over the veto. Am I right in that construction ? Mr. CAMPBELL. I will explain. I have endeavored, Mr. President, to explain the mo- tive of it. Mr. HOADLY. No, sir, excuse the word “ indirectly.” I did not intend to impute any- thing argumentative. Mr. CAMPBELL. The intention is to pre- vent the Legislature from sending to the Governor any bill within the last three days, with a view to the same thing, except that there are three extra days. If they would fix it to adjourn upon the third day of February, the last day of January would be the last day on which a bill could be presented. These three days then would be given for the Legislature to transact any other business that it might have, bring up its Journals — they are never brought up before the adjournment, and not for a long while afterwards — pass resolutions, settle ac- counts and various things, and also to revise the legislation and listen to such arguments as the Governor presented for the reconsideration to an act if there should be any, where the Gov- ernor disapproved an act upon the reconsidera- tion, to give the additional votes. I think the words are not ambiguous. Mr. HOADLY. I did not desire to suggest their ambiguity, but ask whether the conse- quence was designed by him which struck me as being likely to be drawn. I would like to ask the delegate, then, whether the object he has in view in this part of his substitute would not be as well or better accomplished by a direct provision that the General Assembly shall pass no bill, except over a veto, other than a bill sent back by the Governor within three days before its adjournment. Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand that to be the force and effect of the proposition as it is. I freely confess that I have taken a good deal of quinine and other drugs, and my head is not as clear as it might be, but that is the intention of the amendment. I would be perfectly willing that it should embrace the idea. If it is thought no act shall be passed or sent to the Governor within the last three days, where the Governor has sent in a disapproval, there will be a recon- sideration. It would be a mere reconsideration of the vote, and it does not get that, for I think the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], if he will carefully examine it, will see that it does not cut off the right of the Legislature to vote upon a question of reconsideration. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon agreeing to the substitute offered by the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. TOWNSLEY. I move that we take a recess. Mr. CAMPBELL. I wish to ask for the yeas years, instead of four. I am in favor of having those elections as often as possible not to make it inconvenient and expensive to the people, so I and nays. Day.] February 4, 1874.] THE VETO POWER. Hoadly, Campbell, Herron, Townsley. 1073 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman withdraw his motion to take a recess? Mr. TOWNSLEY. I withdraw. Mr. HOADLY. I, for one, would like to have some opportunity for consideration before being compelled to vote on this. It was with great pleasure that I shouted “leave” and “agreed” to give the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] an opportunity of being heard, because I sympathize with him in the affliction of his illness. And if it is proper, I wish that this might be passed, and a vote not had now. If we have to vote to-day, we must vote. But is it not practicable to go to the first section and go through and consider this section here- after ? The PRESIDENT. The Convention has dispensed with the rule at present, on the re- quest of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], that the section may be taken up out of order. Mr. CAMPBELL. Of course, Mr. President, I must not be misunderstood. As I said, I re- gard this as one of the most important duties which we have to discharge, and I should be very loth to force the Convention hurriedly into a vote. My indisposition, or situation, is not at all to be considered in connection with the proper consideration of as grave a subject as this. Mr. CLARK, of Ross. I renew the motion to take a recess. The motion was agreed to ; and (at 12 :20) the Convention took a recess. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 2 :30 p. m. The PRESIDENT. The question before the Convention is upon agreeing to the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] to section eighteen. Mr. HOADLY. I ask for a call of the House. The Secretary called the roll, and the fol- lowing members answered to their names : Albright, Alexander, Bannon, Barnet, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Bosworth, Burns, Campbell, Car- bery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Foran, Gardner, Greene, Gurley, Hale, Herron, Hitchcock, Hoadly, Horton, Hostetter, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kerr, McBride, McCormick, Miller, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Pratt, Riekly,Root, Rus- sell of Meigs, Sample, Scofield, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thomp- son, Townsend, Townsley, Tripp, Tulloss, Tut- tle, Yan Voorhis, Yoris, Waddle, Watson, Wea- ver, West, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 68. Mr. HERRON. I move that all further pro- ceedings under the call be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HOADLY. There is a portion of the substitute proposed by the delegate from But- ler [Mr. Campbell], upon which his views and his experience are such as to commend it to the most careful and respectful con- sideration of this Convention; and I must say that, as far as I am at present advised, if the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell] had pro- y. n--70 posed to limit the right of the Legislature to present laws to the Governor for his approval to that portion of the session which is not em- braced within the last three days, I should feel inclined to support it. If any practicable plan can be devised to break up the hurry of the last part of the session, it seems to me that it would be wise to adopt it. But the resi- due of the plan of the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell] amounts, as I understand it, to the excision of the most useful part of the veto. It leaves the Governor with the power, orally or in writing, to scold the Leg- islature for having passed a law. I do not wish to be understood as implying any dis- respect to the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] by using this phrase, and yeti think it describes, substantially, what the veto may become under his plan. The Governor may, by word of mouth, or in writing, rebuke the Gen- eral Assembly, for the passage of a law, and may require them to take the vote over again, and that is the end of it. There may be good in it, but very little compared with a two-thirds or three-fourths veto. As I listened to the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] I was carried back to the days of my youth, when this question of veto or no veto, was a political question in Ohio, and in the United States, and his potent voice was heard rallying the people on one side, while the education that I received was, I must say, upon the other; and I do not think, though I was very immature at that time, and he much more mature, that subsequent consideration and re- flection have altered the views of either of us. j Mr. President, the history of Ohio is the his- tory of a State without a veto, because of a mere fortuitous series of circumstances. The refusal to adopt the veto was not an independent deter- mination by the people of Ohio. The people of Ohio never did it. The people of Ohio never were consulted in the formation of the Consti- tution of 1802 at all. The men that made that Constitution refused to submit it to the people; and for fifty years it was the organic law of Ohio, without ever having received the appro- val of the people at all. So I say that the fact that, in our history, from 1802 to 1851, there was no veto, was not the result of a determina- tion of the people of Ohio, in their early history, as I shall prove presently, by reading some ex- tracts from the historian of the early times of the State. So much only by way of meeting that portion of the argument. For one, I desire the veto in Ohio, with the right of two-thirds of the Legislature to over- rule it, and not of three-fifths. If I cannot get two-thirds, I shall take three-fifths. If I can- not get three-fifths, rather than have none, I shall vote for the proposition of the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell], although I regard it as but little better — still it islbetter — than no veto at all. So much of objection to it as is found in that fact, that it omits the joint and several character of the proposition, it is not worth while now to discuss. It was fully dis- cussed this forenoon. The point that I wish to make upon it is this, that it simply confines the power of the Governor to compel a recurrence and a re-vote in the Legislature. Mr. Presi- dent, if the people of Ohio were prepared to sit 1074 THE VETO POWER. Hoadly, Ewing, West. down and frame an organic law which should define and limit the powers of the General As- sembly, which should secure my liberty and that of my fellow-citizens against the invasions of the General Assembly, I should not feel half the interest in the subject that I do; but your Constitution, from the time of its adoption in 1802 down to the present time, has conferred upon the Legislature of Ohio, except in a very few respects, an unqualified power over the liberties of the people of Ohio, and the Commit- tee on the Legislative Department now propose to continue in the General Assembly the sove- reign power — a power, sir, which is restricted and restrained by the very few restrictions and limitations to be found in the Preamble and Bill of Eights. The first section of the proposed Article on the Legislative Department says, the legislative power of this State shall be vested in the Gen- eral Assembly; and there is no lawyer within hearing of my voice who does not know that the Supreme Court of Ohio have decided, time and again, that this delegation of power to the General Assembly is an absolute delegation of all power within the State, except so far as it may be restrained by the inhibitions of the State Constitution, or of the Federal Constitu- tion. Mr. EWING. The legislative power? Mr. HOADLY. The legislative power, pre- cisely; but the power to legislate is the power to direct execution. It is a power to compel administration; and there is not, to-day, any thing between the people of Ohio and the worst species of sumptuary laws — a law fixing the price of bread — a law fixing the price of clothing — any species of sumptuary law, regulating the habits of the people — there is nothing between us and such laws , except the good sense of the General Assembly; and, upon one subject, at least, the adoption of sumptuary laws is a mat- ter of principle with a very large number of the people of Ohio, and, perhaps, to a majority of the members of this Convention. I refer to the subject of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Now, with this terrible grant — for it is a terri- ble grant of power — I am for the veto power, as a protection to individual liberty. My politics are, individual liberty, against the State; State rights, against Federal encroachments. And, for one, because I believe that the Governor is much more the representative of the people than a member from a single county, or a majority of the members, from a majority of the counties in the State, I feel inclined to confide to him the power to exercise a check upon the Legislature — for this is all it is — which is involved in send- ing a proposition back to be passed by a two- thirds vote. Our Governor is elected by the people of the whole State. What share have I in the election of Representatives in Cuyahoga county? The people in this county have not the same habits, the same education, the same pursuits as the people of the Western Reserve, and the people of the Western Reserve, uniting with other counties in the State, have the absolute right, under this delegation of legislative power, to bind, hand and foot, the people of Hamilton county, so far as the inhibitions of the State and Federal Constitution do not prevent. But [105tll [Wednesday, the Governor of Ohio, we have a right to vote for. He is our servant, by our choice; and I submit that he does not stand in the position of a monarch. He does not stand in the position of one holding power by hereditary right or military seizure, but he is the servant of our very choice; whereas, with a majority of the members of the House of Representatives, it often may happen, and always almost has hap- pened, some in questions dividing opinion, that in the adoption of the law, the people of some partion of the State are not sharers, in any respect, except by protest against it through their members in the minority voting against it; and if minority representation be denied, when that question shall be reached, when we come to the discussion of representation, and I can shake hands freely with my friend from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing], if the majority of this Convention deny minority representation — so much the stronger will become the argument. And I care not if it be said that this is the thousand-and-first time that my friend from Butler [Mr. Campbell] has heard it; that the old veto power, the power of the tribunes of the people, was in the hands of Andrew Jack- son, was in the hands of John Tyler, and would be in the hands of the Governor of Ohio, a power to be exercised for the protection of the people. Mr. President, Judge Burnet states how it came to pass that the power of the veto was not introduced [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WEST. I believe it was understood that by common consent, when this section was under discussion, the rule should be suspended. The PRESIDENT. If that is the under- standing, the gentleman may proceed. Mr. HOADLY. I read from page 350 of Burnet’s Notes on the North-western Territory : “Tt is a fact, worthy of some notice, that those who ad- vocated the immediate formation of a State government were unwilling to refer the decision of that question to the Legislature of the Territory, or to take the opinion of the inhabitants, whether a Convention should be called or not. As the safer way to accomplish their purpose, they petitioned Congress to take the power into their own hands, and order a Convention, without consulting either the Legislature or the people of the district. “The application of those individuals, unauthorized as it was, by any legitimate authority, recognized in the dis- trict, was sustained, and Congress proceeded, forthwith, to pass a law, not only authorizing, but in pretty plain terms urging the people of the eastern division of the Territory to form a Constitution and State government. That law prescribed the boundaries of the State, fixed the number of members of which the Convention should con- sist, and apportioned the number to be chosen to each county. It also changed the qualifications of electors, prescribed by the ordinance, and appointed the time and place of holding the election.” On page 359, 1 read again with regard to the work that the Convention did : “Probably there is no article in the Constitution that strikes the reader with more surprise than that which de- fines the powers of the Governor. They are so limited and restricted as to be almost nominal. It is made his duty to recommend to the consideration of the Assembly, such matters as he shall think proper. He may fill va- cancies in office, happening in the recess of the General Assembly, till the end of their next session. He may re- prieve or pardon convicts; and is authorized to appoint the Adjutant General of the State; but he cannot inter- fere in any form, with the action of the Legislature, or check for a single hour the most improvident, or uncon- stitutional movements of that body. He has not any par- ticipation in the appointing power. He is not permitted to imminate candidates for office; nor can he remove an I officer, or even suspend his functions, temporarily, how- THE VETO POWEB 1075 Day.] February 4, 1874.] Hoadly. ever mischievous his conduct in office may be. It has been intimated, heretofore, that this parsimonious delegation of power to the Chief Executive may be attributed to a recollection of the manner in which the Governor of the Territory had executed the powers confided to him by the ordinance. That example was before their eyes; and it was natural to expect, that while they were studiously aiming to avoid one extreme, they would fall into the other.” On page 362, with reference to the manner in which the Constitution was adopted, Judge Burnet says : “A view of the manner in which the Convention was called, and the condition of the Territory at the time necessarily give rise to some interesting reflections. There was a Territorial Legislature then in existence, vested with full and complete legislative power, which had never been consulted on the subject. About one- third of the members of the Convention were also mem- bers of that Assembly. No power had been given to Con- gress, in the ordinance or elsewhere, to interfere with the local legislation of the Territory, after the establishment of the second grade of government. The formation of a State Constitution, belonged wholly to the people ot the Territory, and their Legislature, neither of whom had been permitted to take part in the movement. When the people of the district amounted to sixty thousand in num- ber, they were authorized to form a Constitution on Re- ublican principles, and become a member of the Union. rior to that time, it was understood that Congress had power to permit the formation of a State government; but that, when that permission had been granted, their power was exhausted. As to everything else, connected with that subject, the Legislature and people of the district had the exclusive right cf prescribing and acting. “In confirmation of the correctness of the view here presented, the reader is requested to pause, and examine the Appendix annexed, marked K, where he will 'find that Mr. Fearing, the delegate then representing the Ter- ritory in Congress, resisted the proposition for calling a Convention, on the same grounds which are here stated —that neither the people of the Territory at large, nor their representatives in the General Assembly, had been consulted; and that the project before Congress was neither more nor less than a mandate directing the citi- zens to elect a Convention; and ordering that body, when assembled, if they assented to the conditions proposed, to proceed and form a Constitution for the people of the Ter- ritory, without ascertaining whether it met the views of the majority of them or not. The reader will also find that other members of Congress viewed the project in the same light, and opposed it for the same cause; and that the people of the Territory expressed the same opinion at their public meetings. Yet Congress, without consulting either, ordered a Convention, and directed all the details concerning it. “The law they passed extended the right of suffrage to almost every person residing in the territory; which was a violation of so much of the ordinance as related to that subject. The authority of the people, and their immedi- ate representatives, was broken down— the power of the general government set up in its place, and a course pur- sued which was completely revolutionary in its character and tendency. It was, however, submitted to, and no efforts were made to retard or embarrass the movements of the majority, after Congress had taken the manage- ment of the matter into their own hands. Indeed, such an attempt, if it had been made, would have been useless. That being the case, one would suppose that the Constitu- tion, formed under such circumstances, by an authority so remote from the people, would have been submitted to their consideration, to be accepted or rejected at their pleasure. Such, however, was not the fact. The resolu- tion offered for that purpose was voted down, and the in- strument was declared to be obligatory on all concerned, nolens volens .” On page 374, 1 read : “The manner in which he [General St. Clair] discharged the duties appertaining to the office of Governor of the Territory from 1787 till 1802, inclusive, and of commander of the western army in 1791, may be collected from the preceding narrative; yet a concise recapitulation of some of the occurrences in the official course of that distin- guished man, while administering the civil government of the Territory, cannot be uninteresting. “During the continuance of the first grade of that im- perfect government, he enjoyed the respect and confidence of every class of people. He was plain and simple in his dress and equipage, open and frank in his manners, and accessible to persons of every rank. In these respects he exhibited a striking contrast with the Secretary, Colonel Sargeant; and that contrast, in some measure, incceased his popularity, which he retained unimpaired till the commencement of the first Legislature. During that session he manifested a strong desire to enlarge his own powers, and restrict those of the Assembly; which was the more noticed, as he had opposed the usurpations of the Legislative Council, composed of himself, or in his absence, the Secretary, and the judges of the general court; and had taken an early opportunity of submitting his views on that subject to the General Assembly. “The first symptom of a desire to extend his power, was seen in the construction he gave to some of the pro- visions of the ordinance, the tendency of which was to confine the action of the Legislature, as for example: the ordinance made it his duty, as Governor, to proceed, from time to time, as circumstances might require, to lay out the parts of the district, in which the Indian title had been extinguished, into counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations as might thereafter be made by the Legislature. Although the entire Territory, sub- ject to his action, had been laid out into counties, prior to the meeting of the Legislature in 1799, yet he claimed the exclusive right of creating new counties, by the division and alteration of existing ones. “In opposition to that assumption, the Legislature in- sisted that his power was exhausted by what he had already done; and that the right of altering existing counties was vested in their body, subject to his veto. “In accordance with that view they proceeded to pass bills for that purpose, and sent them to the Governor for his concurrence. He not only withheld his approval, but retained them in his hands till the close of the session, when he sent a written communication to the Assembly, couched in offensive language, remonstrating against their proceedings as an usurpation of power, which was contrary to his usual custom. “He intimated, in pi-etty plain terms, a want of confi- dence in the judgment and discretion of the Assembly in deciding when the number of inhabitants, or the situa- tion of the district, rendered it necessary or proper to al- ter or divide it, and thereby establish a new county; and as if anxious to make his power more sensibly felt, he proceeded immediately to create and organize new coun- ties out of old ones, varying somewhat from the plan adopted by the Assembly; and to establish them by pro- clamation, without consulting the Legislature. “On the ground that the section in the ordinance, creat- ing the General Assembly, declared that it should consist of the Governor, Legislative Council, and House of Repre- sentatives, and that the former should have an absolute veto on the proceedings of the two Houses; he claimed to be a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, vested with full discretion to decide on the propriety and expediency of all their acts, placing his own opinion, in every case, in opposition to the judgment and experience of both Houses. “The effect of the construction he gave of his own powers, may be seen in the fact that of the thirty bills, passed by the two Houses during the first session, and sent to him for his approval, he refused his assent to eleven, some of which were supposed to be of much im- portance, and all of them calculated, more or less, to ad- vance the public interest. Home of them he rejected, be- cause they related to the establishment of new counties; others because he thought they were unnecessary or in- expedient. Thus more than a third of the fruit of the labor of that entire session was lost by the exercise of the arbitrary discretion ot one man. “In one of his communications he begged the Assembly to remember that he was a co-ordinate branch of their body, and had a right to receive copies of all bills, re- ported in either House, as soon as they were piinted and furnished to the members. It was understood and known that no act of the Assembly could receive the force of a law without his consent— that his veto was absolute and final, and that it gave him a perfect control over the ex- ercise of the law-making power; but it was not admitted for a moment that he had a right to engage in the delib- erations, or interfere in any manner with the transac- tions of their body; or to require them to communicate with him on any measure pending in either House, as they did with each other; yet to gratify his feelings a joint order was immediately made, directing the officers to send the bills as he had desired.” It would take much more time than I have, to continue the reading of this interesting passage from an early history. I have read enough to show that what Judge Burnet said is true : that in the recoil from one extreme, which was, that the Governor had an absolute veto, without check, the Constitutional Convention rushed into the other extreme, depriving the Governor of all veto power ; and then this Constitutional 1076 THE VETO POWER. Hoadly, Campbell, Voris. [105th Convention of Ohio forced the Constitution upon the people, against the protest of the people, in primary assemblies, and by petitions, against the voice of their delegates in Congress. They refused to submit their work to the peo- ple, and for fifty years, this extreme measure, adopted out of personal hatred to General Ar- thur St. Clair, and out of dislike to the man- ner in which he had exercised his absolute veto, became a part of the law of Ohio, and was encrusted in the history of Ohio ; so that, at last, what was originally, as Judge Burnet justly calls it, an extreme step, became a part of con- servatism to maintain. Now, I submit that in the history of the State there is nothing to justify our refusing to adopt the plan of the fathers of our Federal Consti- tution, upon which Alexander Hamilton, as well as James Madison agreed; upon which Patterson, of New Jersey, as well as Edmund Randolph agreed; to which, in order to de- prive it of its force, Thomas Jefferson offered no amendment, for that subject was never after- wards sought to be amended — I submit that that upon which Jefferson, Randolph, Madison and Patterson agreed, and which has ever since been, and is to-day, the law of the land ; for the abolition of which a great political party*once strove, inscribing upon its banners, “No more veto,” but which as a principle is no longer heard, of, and which has ceased to be numbered among men as a principle worthy of political action — I submit that by the fact of the concurrence of the wisest of the fathers, by the fact that the Whig party when it undertook to abolish the veto power failed, and to-day no voice is heard for its excision from the Federal Constitution. I submit that by the history of the veto, as administered by the President of the United States — I recall the Marysville road veto, I recall the bank veto with pride — they are a part of the proud heritage which I have in the history of my country, of the wise exercise of the judicious powers entrusted by our fathers to the President. I submit that by all these ar- guments we have proved that in this Constitu- tion, by giving a two-thirds or a three-fifths veto to the Governor, we are providing a power to protect our people against representative in- vasion of individual liberty. Gentlemen talk about the right as if the Legislature alone represented the people. The Governor as well represents them, and the Leg- islature are as capable, and more so, of an in- vasion of their property as is the Governor. How is it in Kentucky, in New York, in Penn- sylvania? Has the right of the veto, exercised this last year by Governor Hartranft of Penn- sly vania, between sixty and eighty times, been taken away from him ? Has it been taken from the Governor of New York? Do the people of Kentucky propose to deprive their Governor of it? Not at all. Proud and satisfied with the result, is the verdict of State history in every case in which the State Constitution has con- ferred the veto. And my friend, who opposes the veto, will look in vain for the case of a State which has risen in rebellion against the veto power % as confided to its Governor, and taken it from him. It is simply because by a chapter of accidents, an old military hero waged war against the territorial Assembly in I [Wednesday, early times in Ohio, and by another chapter of accidents the Constitutional Convention, by his enemies, refused to submit their work to the people, that we are in this condition in Ohio, that he who is the representative of all the peo- ple has not a word to say about the work of leg- islation ; but that the work of legislation was agreed on by a majority of the Representatives of the people elected from the several counties. I submit that the true political philosophy is not to give the absolute veto that Governor St. Clair had; but to give a qualified veto ; a veto that will be a check on over-legislation, that the very thing which my friend from Butler, [Mr. Campbell], desires to prevent by his three days, may be more effectually accomplished, so that it may apply no more to the three days, than to the whole session. Mr. CAMPBELL. I wish to suggest that the proposition does not confine the Governor to three days. If the bill be passed, during the session, he can send in his reasons for vetoing it. Mr. HOADLY. The delegate is right, and either he has not understood me, or I have not expressed myself as clearly as, in the warmth of debate, I ought. What I desire to call to my aid in the argument is the zeal with which the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell] argued against hasty legislation in the last three days, and I wish to claim that it might be well to adopt such a principle as a qualified veto, which, after all, is often, if there be a difference between the Governor and the Legislature, only an appeal to the sovereign tribunal — the people. You propose to make your Governor hold office but two years. As the Convention is now of opinion, the Legislature will hold office but two years. Your veto, even if the Governor is sustained by a failure on the part of two-thirds to pass the law, is but an appeal to the people for a decision, which must come within two years. I submit for all of these reasons, that the two-thirds veto is the principle we should introduce. Mr. VORIS. Can the gentleman give an in- stance where the veto power has been exercised to the prejudice of the people? Mr. HOADLY. I cannot. Mr. VORIS. Is there such on record ? Mr. HOADLY. I do not believe there is, in the history of the United States, or in that of any of the States. I never heard of it, and that accounts for the fact that when the Whig party made its appeal to the people, in 1844, against the veto, they died. They died with the words, “ no veto,” engraved on their shield. The peo- ple would not follow them, and they failed. The people of the United States, and of this State, I respectfully submit, will sustain a measure, the necessary effect of which is to counteract, in some degree, the general habit of hasty legisla- tion, over-legislation, and rotten legislation. Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman referred a moment ago to the political campaign of 1840. The question of veto was made squarely an is- sue between Harrison and Van Buren,andit strikes me that Harrison was elected by an overwhelming majority. Mr. HOADLY. I was a boy fourteen years of age at that time, and I took just as lively an interest in what was going on, as a mischievous boy at that age might, and I venture to say, if my friend will take out the singing and hard Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1077 February 4, 1874.] Hoadly, Campbell, Carbery, Burns, Root. •cider, and the log cabins, and the coon skins, that General Harrison would have been beaten to death in that election. Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will al- low me, I think if it had not been for the fact that General Jackson whipped the British at New Orleans, he would not have been elected, and, I think, perhaps, if it had not been that General Harrison whipped the Indians and British at Tippecanoe, on the plains, he would not have been elected. Mr. HOADLY. Undoubtedly, I thank my friend for the concession. Mr. CAMPBELL. Going the whole hog for “Old Hickory” carried him through, and prob- ably coon skins and hard cider carried Harri- son through. Mr. HOADLY. The gentleman has admitted that coon skins, hard cider, and the battle of Tippecanoe did it. Mr. CAMPBELL. Helped do it. The point I make is this: That the veto was every where made an issue. It was upon the banners of the Whig party of 1840. Mr. HOADLY. And I remind my Whig friend of this, as Martin Van Buren once said, “the sober second thought of the people is al- ways right,” and after 1840, when John Tyler had no friends to his back, except Caleb Cush- ing, Henry A. Wise, and enough more to make a corporal’s guard, when he tried on the veto power, my friend and his friends went to the people with Henry Clay, the great opponent of the veto, as a candidate for President in 1844, and on the question of veto or no veto, went down, and their favorite principle of no veto has never emerged since. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman allow me to inquire what became of his friend John Tyler, who exercised his veto ? Mr. HOADLY. The veto lived, although Tyler died. Mr. CAMPBELL. He never was heard of again, and will not be until Gabriel blows his last horn. Mr. HOADLY. No; thank God for that. The last I heard of him he was a rebel before he died, and was down on a neck of worn-out land in Virginia, this side of Chesapeake Bay. But the veto lived. Mr. CARBERY. Did his rebellion consist in his adhering to what the gentleman stated he was in favor of, State Rights? Mr HOADLY. His rebellion consisted in his adhering to State Sovereignty. Did I say State Sovereignty ? I said State Rights, not State wrongs. Mr. BURNS. I submit that it is unfair to discuss the merits of Harrison, Jackson, and Tyler, without giving them a chance to be heard. Mr. PRATT. They have got some friends here. Mr. HOADLY. I am not objecting to interrogatories, but I tell my colleague Mr. [Carbery], that he and I agree on most subjects; but he is troubled on a point that I was a little surprised to hear him trouble himself about, that I prefer individual liberty to State encroachments, State rights to Federal encroachments. I do not propose to be caught in committing myself to what I do not believe in, State Sover- eignty. No, Mr. President, though the ques- tion of what my politics are, has nothing to do with this thing, I can tell the gentleman that I stand on Jackson’s proclamation and force bill which was the Democratic doctrine in 1833, although it had a little vacation at one time, by the aid of my friend, during the last war. I trust to God that the national principles which underlie the proclamation and force bill are again true Democratic principles as in the days of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Mr. ROOT. Some gentlemen deem it of great Democratic importance to vest the Governor with a veto power. Now, Mr. President, I believe I have always been more anxious to do what is right than to accomplish that which is either Republican or Democratic. I have often thought of the advice that Lord Mansfield gave to his military friend, who had been appointed Governor of a certain island colony, and who went to him for his congratulations, saying, that he had served his king, as a soldier, until he was more than three score, and now, thank God, his gracious master had made him comfortable for the rest of his life; for, although the climate of his island was rather unhealthy, he had served in India, and even if he died soon he would die happy. The next day he came back to the great chief justice and said — for they were on very intimate terms : “Why, Willie,” (not, my Lord), “ there is a mistake about this governorship. I cannot take it. I have learned that the Gover- nor of that island is, ex-officio , the chancellor. Now, my God, what could I do as chancellor?” “ It is the very thing for you,” said Lord Mans- field. “ Do right in all cases, and nine times out of ten, you will hit the law. In the tenth instance, if you fail to hit the law, you will hit where the law ought to be.” Perhaps if we were all more solicitous to make our actions conform to the right, than to any party creed, we should do our constituents better service. It was through Democratic- Jeffersonian influence that the veto was left out of the Constitution of 1802. A majority of the people were Democrats, and their Democracy was of the true Jeffersonian stamp. The way Gov- ernor St. Clair had used and abused the veto disgusted them with the whole thing. They dreaded St. Clair’s influence over the territo- rial Legislature, and they determined to get around it. Hence, they proceeded to elect delegates to a Convention, who formed a Con- stitution, without asking leave from either the territorial Legislature or Congress. The veto was carefully excluded from the Constitution thus framed, and was approved by the people; and under it Ohio was admitted into the Union of States; and for the next quarter of a century there was not a more Democratic State in the Union. Whether our ancestors of that time were right or wrong is not a question here. My opinion is, that their jealousy of the veto power was, in their circumstances, quite excusable. Doubtless, Governor St. Clair was a first-class old gentleman, wore clean linen, high top boots, and had three kinds of liquor on his table at dinner, which, I believe, go, in part, to make up the definition of a gentleman in those days. He was a man of very considerable parts, too, and, I doubt not, of good intentions ; but that he 1078 THE VETO POWER. [105th Boot, Hoadly, Cunningham, Tuttle, Ewing, Beer. [Wednesday, committed grave errors and grave blunders can hardly be doubted. Surely the thorn that wounded him in the latter part of his life was of the tree he had planted. But, sir, I rose chiefly to say this : I would be for a limited veto power, especially since you have decided to make the election of your Rep- resentatives biennial. I would be for such a veto as has been used by Washington and Madison; and l would have a veto pure and simple, to be overcome by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature —not confined to appropriation bills merely ; for God knows that some of the most iniquitous legislation, some of that kind of legislation which we may class as special, and intended to benefit classes or peculiar in- terests outside of all appropriation bills, are more vicious than any appropriation bill can be, for those are only temporary. Mr. HOADLY. Does the gentleman under- stand that anybody proposes to confine the veto to appropriation bills ? Mr. ROOT. What else have you got of it now ? Mr. HOADLY. As I understand it, it ex- tends to everything; but in respect to appro- priation bills, it has a joint and separate action. Mr. ROOT. Exactly. It has got twisted. Let us have the veto pure and simple, or none at all. I do not want it mixed up with legis- lative power. I cannot bring my mind to con- sent to the substitute proposed by the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell]; I cannot co- incide with him in all the views that he stated. He stated them with great modification ; and I never in my life regretted more than I did this morning, that he was not the Lew Campbell of twenty years ago; that he had not all his old physical strength; for he could, and I hope would, have a tale unfolded, that would have startled some of us into a grave consideration of this subject. There is something in his, what do you call it — his elastic veto. He al- ways had an eye for the graceful, and I for the substantial. I like things not very elastic. 1 like those that have backbone in them ; so does the gentleman. But the veto provided for in the proposition of the Committee, would, in my opinion, prove worse than useless. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. “ Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor.” How much more pure and simple could you have a veto ? Mr. ROOT. Go on to your eighteenth sec- tion, and read what is in italics. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. “ If he approve it he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve it, he shall return it with his objections, to the House in which it shall have originated, which House shall enter the objections at large upon its Journal, and proceed to reconsider the bill.” Mr. ROOT. That is not the way it stands. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am reading from the proposition. Mr. ROOT. Not as it now is, since the amendment agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am reading from the Report of the Committee of the Whole, with the amendment in italics, just as we have been considering it to-day. Mr. ROOT. Have you read it through ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have read as far as it affects this matter — the matter of veto pure and simple. Mr. ROOT. Let us see — you say you have? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. ROOT. “ If any bill presented to the Governor contain several items of appropria- tion of money, he may object to one or more of said items, while approving of the other por- tions of the bill. In such case, he shall ap- pend — Mr. HOADLY. You will have to take the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. Mr. TUTTLE. Let me read for you. Mr. ROOT. I wish you would. Mr. TUTTLE. “In such case he shall ap- pend to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects, and the appropriation so objected to shall not take effect. If the General Assembly be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill originated, a copy of such statements, and the items objected to shall be separately recon- sidered. If, on reconsideration, one or more of such items be approved by three-fifths of the members elected to each House, the same shall be a part of the law, notwithstanding the ob- jections of the Governor. All the provisions of this section, in relation to bills not approved by the Governor, shall apply to cases in which he shall withhold his approval from any item or items contained in a bill appropriating money.” Mr. EWING. That was stricken out. Here is the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The amendment pro- posed by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], was a substitute for all that passage that has been read, and the passage was stricken out and the amendment adopted as a substitute. The PRESIDENT. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], was adopted. Mr. ROOT. Exactly; but it does not cover this case at all. I tell you your veto, as you have got it fixed now, is not worth preserving. There is nothing of it that is a veto. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Craword [Mr. Beer], does not touch this point at all. Mr. BEER. It is on that point. The PRESIDENT. The part in italics, to which reference has been made by the gentle- man from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], and the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], was stricken out, and thereupon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], was in- serted, and the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], now has that substitute in his hands. Mr. ROOT. There is more to this substitute than I supposed. It incorporates: “No items in the bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of the appropriation disapproved, shall be void, unless passed ac- cording to the rules and limitations prescribed for other bills over the executive veto.” Now, if you agree to the substitute of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], then J all his objections amount to a reconsideration THE VETO POWER. Boot, Hoadly, Foran, Hunt. 1079 Day.] February 3 . 1874 .] and a re-vote. If you do not agree to that, then you have the veto power applied to a part of the bill and not the whole. Mr. HOADLY. So far only as appropriation bills are concerned. Mr. ROOT. Precisely. I understand that. It should not be confined to appropriation bills. The principle is unsound. He should veto the whole, or leave untouched the whole, and here is the reason : In Congress they are apt to know the President, and with all respect I say that, the breeds of Washingtons and Jeffersons have nearly run out. In Jackson’s time, it was a matter of notoriety that members of Con- gress were shy of the President, for they knew if they passed any bill which he thought improper he would veto it without hesitation, and it had a good effect upon the Houses, and whenever they have had a President of any nerve and in- dependence they have always looked cautiously to details, especially in reference to grabbing provisions, because a good President does not allow them to pass if he knows it. A good President never has a share. A good President will not let anybody have a share, if he knows it, and it exercises a wholesome influence : “Be careful that you insert none of this bad stuff, for if you do, you will poison the whole bill and have it upon your own hands.” But here you are going to soften down your veto. You are going to make it so that the Governor can strike out some little item or some little items and let the rest of the bill go. You do not know what he will strike out. If anybody can get anything in, and can manage to have the Governor overlook or approve it, all right. A man that gets something in, and cannot manage it, is simply unfortunate. I say that it is very far from the veto pure and simple. It is very far from a veto that will be of any benefit to the people. It will be a col- lusion. It would raise suspicion that there had been dickering between members of the same House, between the two Houses, between one House and the Governor, and between both Houses and the Governor. Let the Houses pass only such bills as they think right, and when they come to the Governor if he finds them wrong, let him veto them and send them back. That would be a veto power that we could re- spect. That would be a veto power that the Legislature would respect; but so long as you leave it retailed out by the small, you make it anything but respectable or useful ; you invite its abuse. Mr. FORAY. The question under consider- ation, being one of more than ordinary impor- tance, I desire to place upon record a few of the reasons which govern the vote I shall cast when the ayes and noes are called. I will pre- sent my views briefly, and will not occupy the attention of the Convention more than three minutes, as my opinions are founded upon first or fundamental principles, which can be very tersely stated. Mr. President, I am opposed to the adoption of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], because I am not, and never will be, a believer in the abso- lute omnipotence of the majority. That the will of the majority is the will of the people, and hence the will of God, is a superstitious, political heresy, I am unable to reconcile with the teachings of moral law, or the instincts of natural freedom. The logic of socialology and social statics applied to the science of govern- ment, prove conclusively the impregnable truth of the proposition, that the absolute, unchecked and unrestrained rule of the majority, is the rule of tyranny and despotism. To use the words of Herbert Spencer, “The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny ; the rule of few by the many is tyranny also, only of a less intense kind.” But I hear you ask, would you destroy the power of the majority ? Yot at all, sir. I would merely restrain and curb it — make it, if possible, less omnipotent, less ab- solute and unlimited, and force those exercis- ing it, to do so with discretion and moderation, and with some show of reverential respect for the natural and social rights of the minority. I believe with DeTocqueville, “ that some one social power must always be made to predomi- nate over the others; but I think that liberty 6 is endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course and force it to moderate its own vehemence.” To sup- ply that check, I would clothe the Executive with a veto power which could not be counter- vailed or over-ridden, except by a majority power of two-thirds, or at least three-fifths of the legislative body ; and, sir, I really believe we would have better laws, less special or class legislation of a questionable character, if every enactment having the virtue of law, required for its passage a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. The founders of our institutions provided for a division of the legislative power, in order that one branch of the Legislature might be a check upon the other. The experience of near- ly a century has convinced us, that this division of legislative power is a principle of such vital necessity, that to destroy it would be to intro- duce a reign of anarchy and chaos. Pennsyl- vania tried the experiment at one time, and in doing so had the approval of Mr. Franklin him- self. But even the genius of that grand old statesman and philosopher had to succumb to the workings of moral law. My native State was compelled to return to the principle of having two Houses. These are a few of my reasons for advocating the veto power. I desire to see it incorporated in our Constitution, because I desire to see the absolute power of the majority checked as much as possible. Mr. HUNT. There is no principle so essen- tial to free Constitutional Government as the limitation placed upon the Executive, the Leg- islative and the Judicial branches. In the formation of the Federal Constitution, it was recognized as the basis of all government. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by distributing and dividing it into different departments, each the guardian of the public goods was considered by all of the earlier statesmen. They were careful to desig- nate the attributes of each department and to insert terms of limitation and exclusion. They assigned to the different departments their re- spective powers. The great object of a written Constitution is to keep the various branches of i government as separate and distinct as possi- 1080 THE VETO POWER. Hunt. [105th [Wednesday, ble, and for this reason restraints are imposed. This idea has become fixed in the national sen- timent and in the national character. It has been incorporated into every State Constitution. These restraints are necessary to secure perma- nency and stability in the administration of public affairs. The preservation of our political well-being — both State and National — depends upon these distinctions and limitations. Every department of Government is then alike under the same obligation to defend the Constitution and the laws. The powers of each, although separate and defined, are still united in advanc- ing and promoting the public good. The prin- ciple of balance in the organization of Govern- ment must be kept in constant operation. This is the history of all governments where the royal will is not the supreme law. Centraliza- tion of power becomes political despotism. In all the monarchies of Western Europe, during the Middle Ages, there existed these restraints on the royal authority. Kingly power must be tempered with fundamental laws and repre- sentative assemblies, to render the administra- tion of justice uniform throughout the land. It is in this country that there has been applied to a Republican form of government the true principle of limitation, whereby each depart- ment may be kept within its proper sphere of action. The Judiciary must be separate from the Executive and Legislative branches, and provide for the decision of private rights wholly uninfluenced by reasons of State or consider- ations of party or policy. It is the glory of the British Constitution to have led in the estab- lishment of this important principle. It is the theory of the Constitution to restrain the Leg- islature and to subject their acts to judicial decision whenever it appears that such acts in- fringe constitutional limits. In the absence of such a check no certain limitation could exist in the exercise of legislative discretion. Power is of an encroaching nature, and should be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. When the courts of justice go beyond the work of construing and applying the principles of law, they no longer become the citadels of popular liberty and the temples of private jus- tice. When the Legislature usurps the power of the Executive, as well as the functions of the judicial department, there is no longer any protection against illegal or unconstitutional acts. When the Executive assumes the pre- rogatives of the legislative and judicial depart- ments, and the “will of the prince” becomes the law, there is no further security for private rights and the upright administration of justice. It has been well said by Madison, that “ the accumulation of all power, legislative, execu- tive and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be term- ed the very definition of tyranny.” The veto power is necessary, in our system of government, to maintain this idea of limitation and the independence of each department. Th e framers of the Federal Constitution contended that it was not inconsistent with Republican institutions, and made it a part of the organic law. The same reasoning will apply to the State Constitution. The power of self-defense is as necessary as the right of self-defense. The theory of limitation of power cannot be main- tained as long as one of the co-ordinate depart- ments of government is not strong enough of itself to assert its independence within the strict limit of constitutional enactment. The judicia- ry is vested with the power of a negative in de- claring unconstitutional the acts of the Legis- lative Assembly. The Executive should be vested with the power of a qualified negative in a revision of the acts of the Legislature, on the ground of their impolicy as well as their unconstitutionality. The effectual organization of the several departments of government is the surest guaranty against the encroachments of the other departments. It is only when the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches shall each be armed with a power sufficient within itself, that the system of bal- ance can be maintained. “ Experience,” said one of our ablest political thinkers, “ has taught us a distrust of that security, and that it is necessary to introduce such a balance of power and interests as will guarantee the provision on paper.” It is not alone in the separation of the the power of government, but in the ability to assert their individuality, that we have the surest guaranty of governmental protection. Personal liberty can have no security without it. There is never any security for freedom when there is nothing that limits or restrains the exercise of arbitrary will. Chief Justice Marshall, in the celebrated case of Marbury vs. Madison, says: “The Constitution is either a superior or paramount law, unchangeable bjr ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordina- ry legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alter- able when the Legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Con- stitution is not a law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its nature illimitable.” The veto power invests the Executive with a defense and strength not inconsistent with the principles of representative government, and enables that department to defend itself against encroachments. There must bean efficient Ex- ecutive. There must be a dignity and an inde- pendence attaching to the office. The indepen- dence should be important enough to manifest itself, it should be strong enough to defend it- self. The Federalist thus speaks of this pow- er; “ * * * * * The insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries of each, has also been remarked upon, and the ne- cessity of furnishing each with constitutional arms for its own defense has been inferred and proved. From the clear and indubitable prin- ciples result the propriety of a negative, either absolute or qualified, in the Executive upon the acts of the legislative branches. Without the one or the other, the former will be absolutely unable to defend himself against the usurpa- tions of the latter. He might gradually be stripped of his authority by successive resolu- tions, or annihilated by a single vote. And in the one mode or the other, the legislative and Executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands. If even no pro- pensity had ever discovered itself in the legisla- Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1081 February 4, 1874.J Hunt. tive body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic pro- priety would, of themselves, teach us that the one ought to possess a constitutional and effec- tual power of self-defense.” “There cannot be,” said Montesquieu, “any liberty when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates.” The veto power is necessary to prevent legis- lative encroachments. In the Convention, which framed the Federal Constitution, there seemed to be no question as to the necessity of some limitation upon the power of the Legisla- ture. All agreed, as Mr. Gorham said in that body, that there should be some check upon the legislative branch. The only question was, whether the negative in law should be limited or absolute, and whether it should be intrusted jointly to the executive and Judiciary. Madi- son insisted that it would be useful to the Ju- diciary Department, by giving it an additional opportunity of defending itself against legisla- tive encroachments, and would be useful to the Executive by inspiring additional confidence and firmness in exercising the revisionary power. The history of the Federal Congress, as well as the General Assemblies of all the States, shows the necessity of settled limits to legislative discretion. The ordinance of 1787, which has exerted such a mighty and perma- nent influence upon the people of the North- western States, prohibited legislative interfer- ence with private contracts, and secured to the people, as an inalienable inheritance, the bene- fits of habeas corpus , of trial by jury, of judi- cial proceedings according to the common law, and of a representative government. This pro- hibition has been to a great population the safe- guard of the public morals and individual rights. The future of this people will show that more is to be feared from legislative usur- pation than from Executive interference. This is the tendency of all Republican governments. The legislative department derives a superiori- ty in the State as well as in the National gov- ernment from the very nature of its organiza- tion. Its constitutional powers are at once more extensive and less susceptible of definite limits. It can, therefore, with the greater facility in- vade the limits of the other departments of government. The Legislature controls the pub- lic funds. It carries with it great force of pub- lic opinion. The Representatives of the people are frequently brought in contact with one an- other and with their constituencies. The peo- ple are seldom on their guard again t legislative encroachments. The history of the English Parliament proves most conclusively the ten- dency of all legislative bodies. It has absorbed the whole power of the English government. Blackstone, in alluding to its influence, re- marks: “The power and jurisdiction of Par- liament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcen- dent and absolute, that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any bounds. * * * * * It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the making, con- firming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, re- pealing, reviewing and expounding of laws con- cerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, mari- time or criminal ; this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must, in all governments, reside somewhere, is intrusted by the Constitution of these kingdoms. All mis- chiefs and grievances, operations and remedies that transcend the ordinary course of the laws are within the reach of this extraordinary tri- bunal. It can regulate or new model the suc- cession to the Crown, as was done in the reign of Henry VIII, and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land as was done in a variety of instances in the reign of King Henry VIII and his three children. It can create and change afresh even the Constitution of the Kingdom and of Parliaments themselves, as was done by the act of union and the several statutes for triennial and septennial elections. It can, in short, do every thing that is not nat- urally impossible to be done, and therefore some have not scrupled to call its power by a figure rather too bold — the omnipotence of Parlia- ment.” The future danger to our free institutions does not consist so much in executive usurpa- tions, as in legislative encroachments. We have more to fear from a Long Parliament than from a Cromwell. Caesarism is not of this day nor of this generation. The Conventions which recently framed the Constitutions for the great Central States of Pennsylvania and Illi- nois, realized this growing tendency in the administration of government, by placing ad- ditional restrictions upon the law-making department. When France adopted universal suffrage as the basis of her representation, Lamartine re- marked in its favor, that it was the strongest basis which any government could adopt, by reason that all occasions for revolution were ex- tinguished, when a people can at all times legally adapt public measures to their own will. The veto power enables the people to legally adapt public measures to the public will. It is simply an appeal to the people as supreme arbiter. It is a reference to the ballot box. Its exercise can enact no legislation. It can defeat no policy demanded by the public interest. The term of the executive is so limited, that in the event of withholding assent from a measure required by public necessity, the people can pass upon it at the next election. The approval of the people can make it a law. The history of all Federal and State legislation, proves most conclusively that the prerogative will not be exercised to the injury of the public good. There is more danger to be apprehended from the passage of an unwise law, than from the postponement of judicious legislation, until public sentiment can be considered. The mis- taken application of the veto power can only delay for a time that which may be improperly delayed. It is not the one-man power, it is rather every man’s power. It is not a kingly prerogative, but one of the highest privileges that pertains to a free people. The qualified negative is less of the monarchy than of the re- public. No measure demanded by public senti- ment can be defeated by the exercise of the veto power. This was well illustrated in the attempt to abolish the continuance of the nobility by the Norwegian Diet in 1828. The veto power is vested in the king, but if three successive Diets repeat the decree, it becomes a law without the 1082 [105th THE VETO POWER. Hunt. [Wednesday, royal assent. In this respect, it is a qualified and not an absolute negative. The King, on two occasions, had disapproved of the law passed by the Parliament, against the further con- tinuance of the nobility, but the third Diet confirmed the decree of the two former sittings, and it became the law of the land, notwithstand- ing the royal negative. There is a power higher than Governor, or President, or King, and this power will ultimately prevail. It is the judgment of a free people. De Tocqueville, in his “ Democracy in America,” in comment- ing upon our institutions, says of the veto power : “ The President, moreover, is provided with a suspensive veto, which allows him to oppose the passing of such laws as might des- troy the portion of independence which the Constitution awards him. The struggle between the President and the Legislature must always be an unequal one, since the latter is certain of bearing down all resistance by persevering in its plans ; but the suspensive veto forces it, at least, to reconsider the matter, and if the motion be persisted in, it must be backed by a majority of two-thirds of the whole House. The veto power is, in fact, a sort of appeal to the people. The executive power, which, without this security, might have been secretly pressed, adopts this measure of pleading its cause and stating its motives.” Congress considered the force of this appeal to the people when, in 1832, it presented to President Jackson the bill for the re-charter of the United States Bank, at the time he was a candidate for re-election. “I have now done,” said he, “my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow-citizens I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find, in the motives which impel me, ample grounds for contentment and peace.” The exercise of the veto power is further designed to prevent hasty and inconsiderate legislation by subjecting it to the revision and judgment of the executive. It is evident that much of unlegislation is enacted in haste, some of it through passion, and much of it through great carelessness. It is not an absolute and an arbitrary power. It is only an intimation of dissent to what the executive considers impol- itic or unconstitutional legislation. The Gov- ernor is elected by the people of the whole State. The Commonwealth is his constituency. The office represents the sovereignty of the people. There belongs to it, properly, a super- vision over every bill before it becomes a law. Laws may be unwise; laws may be dangerous — laws may be impolitic when passed by a tem- porary majority, in times of public excitement, and moved by violent prejudice. If such legislation be subjected to some revis- ionary power, there will be an opportunity to counteract, by the weight of opinion, the im- proper views of the Legislature. Wise legisla- tion will not be defeated. Unwise legislation may be arrested until there is an expression of popular will. The separation of the Legislature into two Houses, each with a different constitu- ency, and the necessity of the concurrent vote of both Houses to an act of the General Assem- bly, were all intended to prevent inconsiderate and unwise legislation. The Constitution of the State further provides, as an additional check against immature measures, that every bill shall be fully and distinctly read, on three different days, unless, in case of emergency, three-fourths of the House in which the ques- tion may be pending shall dispense with the rule. Sectional feeling and local prejudice may enact such legislation as will not stand the test of calm reflection and deliberate judgment. The disapproval of the executive is not pex’sonal — it is of the people. It belongs to the office, not to the individual. When properly exer- cised it becomes the safeguard of popular rights. It fastens no policy of legislation upon the State. It is the voice of the people, speaking through the representative of the whole people. Instead of the kingly power, its proper use be- comes the authoritative power of the people. It originated in the very idea of protecting the public against oppressive legislation. It is intended to guard the citizen against the pas- sage of bad measures, through haste, inadvert- ence or design. Justice Story, in his Commen- taries on the Federal Constitution, thus speaks of the veto power, in this connection: “In the next place, the power is important as an additional security against the enactment of rash, immature and improper laws. It estab- lishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to preserve the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, un- constitutional legislation and temporary ex- citement, as well as political hostility. It may, indeed, be said, that a single man, even though he be President (or Governor), cannot be pre- sumed to possess more wisdom, or virtue, or ex- perience, than what belongs to a number of men. But this furnishes no answer to the reasoning. The question is not, how much wisdom, or virtue, or experience is possessed by either branch of the government ? Though the executive magistrate may well be presumed to be eminently distinguished in all these re- spects, and therefore the choice of the people ; but whether the Legislature may not be mis- led by a love of power, a spirit of faction, a political impulse, or a persuasive influence, lo- cal or sectional, which at the same time may not, from the difference in the election and duties of the executive, reach him at all, or not reach him in the same degree. He will always have a primary inducement to defend his own pow- er; the Legislature may well be presumed to have no desire to favor them. He will have an opportunity quietly to examine the acts and resolutions passed by the Legislature, not hav- ing partaken of the feelings or combinations which have procured their passage, and then to correct what will, sometimes, be wrong from haste and inadvertence, as well as design. His view of them, if not more wise, or more elevat- ed, will, at least, be independent and under an entirely different responsibility to the nation irom what belongs to them. lie is the repre- sentative of the whole nation in the aggregate; they are the representatives only of distinct parts, and some times of little more than sec- tional or local interests.” The exercise of the veto power is as well demanded in the State as in the Federal system. The same tendency in legislation exists in the one as in the other. The history of all State governments has dem- onstrated that the errors committed in legisla- THE VETO POWER. Hunt. 1083 Day.] February 4, 1874.] tion proceed from the fact that the members are not unwilling, sometimes, to sacrifice the com- prehensive and permanent interests of the whole State to the particular and separate in- terests of the constituencies which they rep- resent. It has been urged by the gentleman from Pick- away [Mr. Page], that the veto is a relic of the Stuarts and the Norman conquerors. It is true that the Stuarts made it an instrument of op- pression, by withholding their assent from ben- eficial laws, until Parliament would increase the royal prerogative ; yet, since the accession of the House of Brunswick, the negative has not been exercised. It is no argument against the principle itself that it has not been applied. It is sufficient that it has been frequently exercised in our own country in the interests of the peo- ple. The very organization of the English Government prevents the necessity of a royal negative on the acts of Parliament. The power vested in the crown has not been exercised since 1692. The legislative power of Parliament has almost become omnipotent. Royal author- ity, through the Ministry, can so direct the pro- ceedings of Parliament as to accommodate the wants and necessities of the crown. The House of Commons is, of itself, the representative of public opinion. The fact that responsibility in public affairs is taken away from the monarch, and vested in a Cabinet, which changes with public sentiment, never creates an emergency for the exercise of the royal negative. A want of confidence in the miniftry is followed by an appeal to the people, and England, to-day, is agitated from center to circumference by the adherents of Disraeli and Gladstone. The king, too, retains his position for life,, and his veto is not susceptible of a review by the peo- ple, or a reversal by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The greatest danger to which the English Constitution is now exposed is from the omnipotence of Parliament. The crown, itself, is even at its mercy. It depends, very greatly, for its existence, upon tradition, and the power of patronage and preferment. Even the courts of law are subject to Parliament, and the separate branches of the legislative department, on several occasions, have asserted their supe- riority over the judiciary. Each House has claimed large, if not unbounded, immunity from the jurisdiction of the law courts, and the latter have hesitated, lest they should be intruding upon the privileges of Parliament. In the English Government, an absolute Legislature makes what law it will, and the crown cannot interfere, in any way, whatever, without the possibility of revolution. The judges have no power to say of any law which has passed through the form of an enactment, that it has not the full force of law. In our own country, these relations are almost reversed. The Leg- islature may make laws, but it is competent for the supreme court to pass upon them, as being in excess of the power of the law-making branch, as defined by the Constitution. The authority of the supreme court is only limited by the sovereignty of the people, as expressed in the Constitution, or as it may, hereafter, be expressed, in solemnly ratified amendments to the organic law. The founders of the Republic expressly intended that this great court, con- sisting of members holding for life, should be, and remain, the standing guardian of the Char- ter of the Nation, raising its august front above the designs of politicians and the shifting changes of parties. Indeed, the whole structure of our government is so different from that of England, where the Executive is not elective, that no argument can be drawn from the face that the veto power has not been exercised for nearly two hundred years. While it is an essential element in all free governments that the majority should rule, it is as necessary that the majority should govern according to certain restrictions. If a differ- ent rule should prevail, our legislative bodies would soon degenerate into a parliamentary despotism like that of the Long Parliament in England, or the Constituent Assembly in France. The right of the majority to rule ex- ists only by virtue of civil, and not of national law. It is conferred by force of positive enact- ment. We live under a government of law in principle, and not under a government of will, whether of the majority or the minority. There are certain fixed rules by which all legislation must be determined. If these limits may be passed at any time by those intended to be re- strained, there is no longer any necessity for a written Constitution. The veto is calculated to protect the rights of the minority against the aggression of the majority. The expediency or unconstitutionality of a measure is not unques- tionable, which is opposed by one-third of the members of a legislative body. It affords the minority an opportunity of being heard, for it assumes the character of a mere appeal to the Legislature itself. It simply asks for a revi- sion. It is in the nature of a re-hearing. It is a reconsideration. Where a measure is oppos- ed by a strong minority, it may well claim the most considerate judgment. The idea that the veto is a monarchial institution, had advocates when the minority attempted to assert its priv- lege in the Constituent Assembly in France. President Harrison, in his inaugural ad- dress, urged the protection of the minority as one reason for favoring the exercise of the veto power. “I consider the veto power, there- fore, given by the Constitution to the Execu- tive of the United States, solely as a conserva- tive power to be used only, first, to protect the Constitution from invasion; secondly, the peo- ple, from the effects of hasty legislation, where their will has probably been disregarded or not well understood ; and thirdly, to prevent the effects of combination violative of the rights of minorities.” The veto power had its origin in the defense which liberty made against oppression. It did not come from the crown, but from the people. It was the demand for the enforcement of rights. It was the protest against the commission of wrong. In early Rome, where it originated, it was the stand of the plebean against the patri- cian. It was the first attempt of the common people toward securing their liberties. The people contended that they should elect magis- trates whose persons should be held sacred and inviolate, to whom they could commit the pro- tection of their rights. These magistrates were the Tribunes. They stood between the people and the oppression of power. The Tri- bunes could prevent the discussion of any ques- tion. Their power was almost absolute. They 1084 THE VETO POWER. Hunt. [105th could arrest, by the utterance of the word | “veto,” almost the entire machinery of gov- j ernment. The negative was unqualified. I When it was properly used it was the measure I of the people for the protection of the people. J It was the assertion of the right of the oppress- I ed. It was the liberty of the plebean against | the tyranny of the patrician. The person of | the Tribune was held sacred. The decree of ! the Senate bowed to its supremacy. The power of itself, in its origin, assisted in the re- dress of wrongs as well as in the maintenance of liberty. It limited royal authority and the | decree of the Senate. When the tribunitian [ power and royal supremacy became united — like the centralization of power in all govern- | ments — it overthrew the liberty of the citizen. In the hands of the Tribune — the servant of the people — it was the exponent of the people’s will. In the hands of imperial authority, and separate from the people, it became the instru- ment of despotism. It was only when the Em- ! peror Augustus had the Tribuneship conferred I upon him that the veto power became concen- : trated with imperial authority, and the liberty of the citizen was made subject to arbitrary j will. i The framers of the Federal Constitution were almost unanimous in the opinion that ! the Executive should have a revisionary j power over the acts of the Legislature. The : English Executive had a negative in the acts of Parliament, and the Colonial Gov- ernors in the Colonial Legislatures. The power of veto was recognized as an essen- tial element in the formation of the Govern- ment. There was a sentiment in the Conven- tion in favor of constituting the Judiciary a part of the Revisionary Council. Madison con- tended that this power would be useful to the Judiciary Department by giving it an addi- tional opportunity of defending itself against legislative encroachments, and would be useful to the Executive by inspiring additional confi- dence and firmness in exercising the revision- ary power. Luther Martin, on the other hand, insisted that it would bring the two de- partments under the influence of each other, and would commit the judiciary against the constitutionality of the disapproved bills. An absolute negative was advocated by Wilson, of Pennsylvania, and Alexander Hamilton. It was opposed by Franklin, Madison, Sherman, Mason and Butler, of South Carolina. The proposition of Mr. Gerry, to intrust a limited negative to the Executive, was adopted by a vote of eight of the States. Connecticut and Maryland alone voted in the negative. Mr. Bedford, of Delaware, was the only member of the Convention to oppose it in debate in any form. It was at first ordered that a two-thirds vote could overrule the revisionary check of she Executive, but this was afterwards changed to a three-fourths vote. The two-thirds pro- vision was finally restored, and the veto power, as expressed in the eleventh section of Article I, became a part of the Federal Constitution, which has been the model for our State Consti- stutions, and which, for nearly three genera- tions of men, has stood the judgment of pos- terity, and commanded the approval of the American people. [Wednesday, The fact that the veto power has not become a part of the State Constitution — while nearly every other State has adopted it in some form — may be attributed to the abuse of the power by Governor St. Clair. In the year 1789, the first Congress passed an act, recog- nizing the binding force of the Ordinance of 1787, and adopting its provisions into the Federal Constitution. Before the year 1795, no laws, strictly speaking, were adopted. They were generally framed by the Governor and judges, to answer particular public ends, while in the enactment of others, including all the laws of 1792, the Secretary of the Territory discharged the functions of Governor, under the authority of an act of Congress. In 1792, Congress passed another act, giving the Gov- ernor and judges authority to repeal, at their discretion, the laws by them made. The ordi- nance provided, that upon giving proof to the Governor that there were five thousand free males, of full age, in the Territory, the people should be authorized to elect Representatives to a Territorial Legislature, with power to make any laws not repugnant to the Federal Constitution, or the Ordinance of 1787. The judges were thenceforth to be confined to purely judicial functions. The Governor was to retain his appointing power, his general ex- ecutive authority, and have an absolute nega- tive on all the legislative acts. The power of the Governor was even more absolute than be- fore. Governor St. Clair, on the nineteenth day of December, 1799, terminated the first session of the Legislature. In his speech, he enumer- ated eleven acts to which, in the course of the session, he had thought fit to apply an abso- lute veto. Six of the eleven acts then nega- tived, related to the erection of new counties. These were disapproved, for various reasons, but principally, because the Governor claimed that the power exercised in enacting them was vested, by the Ordinance, in himself, and not in the Legislature. This abuse of the veto power excited much dissatisfaction among the people, and the bitter controversy which followed, be- tween the Governor and the Legislature, as to the extent of their respective powers had a ten- dency to strengthen the public discontent. The second session of the Territorial Legis- lature assembled at Chillicothe. The unpopu- larity of Governor St. Clair was manifested in the debates and the votes in answer to his speech. A remonstrance, relative to the mode of exercising the veto power, was presented to him, in behalf of both Houses, to which he re- turned a long and labored reply. The Gov- ernor claimed to be a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, vested with full discretion to de- cide on the propriety and expediency of all their acts, placing his own opinion, in every case, in opposition to the judgment and experi- ence of both Houses. Many of the acts which he refused to approve were demanded by public sentiment and the interests of the people. The exercise of this arbitrary discretion prevented the enactment of important legislation. The action of the Governor created a bitter contro- versy. The two Houses had respectfully re- quested him to return the bills he could not approve, before the close of the session, with his objections, so that it might be in their power 1085 Day.] THE VETO POWER. February 4, 1874.] Hunt, Carbery. to remove any objections by amendment. In his reply, the Governor said : “As to your re- quest, gentlemen, that when any bill, or bills, may be presented for approbation, which may not be approved, I shall return them, in ten days, to the House, where they originated, with the objections I may have to them, I am sorry to tell you that it is altogether out of my power to comply with it. The Ordinance for this Government has placed in the Governor an absolute negative on the bills of the two Houses, and you request that it may, by me, become vested into a kind of qualified negative. You do not, indeed, require that, should the objec- tions be thought of little weight, your acts may become laws without the Governor’s assent. That would have been too direGtly in the face of the Ordinance ; though, without it, I must own I cannot see any use in sending the objec- tions to you.” The difference between the Executive and the Legislature increased until they terminated in his removal from office be- fore the expiration of the Territorial Govern- ment. The first Constitutional Convention of Ohio, which assembled on the first day of November, 1802, at Chillicothe, refused to incorporate the veto power in the organic law. The abuse of its exercise, and the course of Governor St. Clair — like the Stuarts, in withholding their assent from beneficial laws — prejudiced the Convention against its adoption. It was re- garded, because of its flagrant abuse, as an ar- bitrary infringement on the rights of the peo- ple. The territorial Governor was not an elected but an appointed officer. His authority had frequently conflicted with that exercised by the territorial Representatives of the people. The framers of the first Constitution, to some extent, were influenced by the feeling which the course of Governor St. Clair had provoked in the abuse of the veto power. In Michigan, where the same feeling, for the same cause, ex- isted, the veto power was not vested in the Ex- ecutive, in framing the organic law. The dissatisfaction with the Governor even mani- fested itself in a remonstrance addressed to Congress, against the unqualified veto so arbi- trarily exercised over the acts of the Legisla- ture, and against the exclusive right he claimed of dividing and subdividing counties, after they had been created and organized by himself, without their concurrence. It is not enough to say, that the people have suffered no inconvenience from a want of the exercise of this power. It is not enough to say, that the present Constitution, without this provision, has stood the test of twenty years, and has become interwoven with our habits, and our associations. It should be recognized that we occupy our present position at the call of a great people; and. the obligation is imposed upon us of framing a Constitution and a funda- mental law, not for the past, nor alone for the welfare of our present population, but for the generations that shall come in the future. In this age of improvement and rapid advancement in material development; in this age of pro- gress and concentration of influence and power, there is a greater necessity for care in our legislation. It is a question of no small moment, to what extent these great corpora- tions, so rapidly increasing in wealth and power, can be controlled by legislative action. If they are kept under the reasonable control of the government, they may accomplish the purposes of their organization and prove a blessing to civilization and not destructive of government. There must be greater care under these influences, if the State would maintain that honorable regard for private rights and public morals which now characterizes her leg- islation. We must not only act for the present, but for the future, and the possibilities of that future. It has been well said by Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, in speaking of the growth of power : “ Nor should our Assembly be de- luded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look for- ward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption will have seized the heads of gov- ernment, and be spread by them through the body of the people, when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” All government, to operate uniformly, must be the government of reciprocal control. Law, of itself, is but limited liberty. There should be the greatest freedom to every citizen consis- tent with social order and the public good. The Constitution is simply the will of the people expressed through an organization by balanced power. The State can well lay claim to the warmest affection and the noblest zeal of every citizen. In that spirit it should be our highest duty to frame a Constitution wise, strong, and durable, and which, in its practical operation, will secure to us, and to those who shall come after us, the blessings of peace, liberty, and good government. Mr. CARBERY. I am sure, it must be very flattering to the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell], that the proposition which he intro- duced here to-day, has elicited such varied and profound discussion from different parts of the House. I had no idea at all, sir, that this dis- cussion would take so wide a range as it has, and that the adverse side would take us, by one agent or another, so far into the past, among the tombs of the great men who lived at the time of the origin of our country’s independ- ence. Great names, indeed, we were familiar- ized with during the exordium of my colleague, Judge Hoadly, and glorious names, of which every American may well be proud ; and it is well for them that they live in the eternal light — in a light eternal as the Sun of Tabor — which the clouds of the present cannot obscure, and that the criticisms of to-day cannot affect their good standing. I, sir, had not the great privi- lege of first feeling the throbs of manhood un- der the sky of America, having formed my youthful experience in another hemisphere; but I took delight, the most insatiable, as an Irish lad, in dwelling upon this grand proces- sion of Americans, who had dared to do what was right against kingly power, and even to die for their cause. And I cannot very well, or 1086 THE VETO POWER. [105th Carbery, Burns. [Wednesday, with a good grace, submit to have my ideal des- troyed by the rough hand of modern criticism. Perhaps it is not the most courteous way to be- gin with the youngest gentleman ; but, it ap- pears to me, that at this late hour of the day, being within a few minutes of the usual time for adjournment, it would be as well, if what I had to say with reference to that gentleman’s argument, should be said first. The gentleman who has just resumed his seat [Mr. Hunt], after giving us a very valuable historical resume , carrying us to the wilds of Norway, to the sunny plains of France, and to the Bridge of Sighs — and, by the way, I sighed in perfect sympathy with him as he proceeded — and it is quite as well that I should say a word that will apply to him, first. It struck me, sir, as he spoke, that his whole argument would be perfectly admirable, if ap- plied to our national system; but, it appeared to me, that its sonorous sentences were entirely inapplicable to the State of Ohio, and to the actualities of our present position here. It is too grand a thing to be applied to a subject like the State of Ohio; for we must recollect that there is a higher law than anything that can be devised in Columbus, which will keep in check the Legislature of our State ; and a higher law than anything which can be conceived of in the brain of William Allen, or any such Governor, and that is, the supreme law of the United States is, after all, the law of the land. There is no fear, therefore, of any incursions on the part of one department of our State government upon any other depart- ment; because all the pomp, and power, and circumstance of this whole nation is pledged to maintain a Republican form of government in every State of the Union. It is, therefore, sir, scarcely in order to marshal this long array of historical facts, that have direct reference only to the affairs of a nation, when considering a matter that is local in its influence ; and, there- fore, I do not feel obliged to accompany my young friend on his journey — no matter how eloquent the guide is, and no matter how pleas- ant he makes the way. On the contrary, I prefer to get a glimpse of him, as he comes back to real life, in about the last fifteen min- utes of his speech. There he proposes to say something about what it is necessary to do in the State of Ohio, in the year 1874. But, sir, in j order to render it at all reasonable, the demand he makes here, and which others will make after j him, from the Representatives of the people of Ohio in Convention assembled, I think it was obligatory upon him to show that, somewhere in this broad State, there had arisen a demand that this extraordinary power should be vested in the Governor; that in some place or another some wrong had been perpetrated, and that somebody had begun to deposit the germ of j something horrible, which would develop in the future, to the utter ruin of the State. Yet, notwithstanding the fecundity of the gentle- man’s imagination— notwithstanding all his exhaustive reading upon the subject, has he given us a single fact to prove that any such ! demand as that was made by the people? Has he given us, here, a substantial reason that the mode proposed by the gentleman from Butler I [Mr. Campbell], to arrest hasty legislation at the close of the session, is not a complete rem- edy for every fault and every wrong that has been pointed out by any gentleman on the other side? In the light of common sense, Mr. Presi- dent, which, after all, cannot be disregarded, even by the poets, something of this kind should be shown us, in evidence of the disease, before gentlemen undertake to apply this extraordinary corrective. I have seen no such evidence — none at all — either from Judge Hoadly, or from my young friend ; and as for the pleasantries of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], although he will vote against us, if I understand his reason- ing at all, it was entirely in our favor, so that the gentleman may be considered as only half in opposition. Something was said, during the discussion of other matters upon this floor, a day or two ago, in regard to how degrading it was, and how unseemly, to admit Mr. BURNS. I would like to ask my es- teemed friend a question. Mr. CARBERY. Go on, sir; I could not refuse anything to so venerable a gentleman as yourself. Mr. BURNS. That is a compliment, coming from my young friend, which I did not expect. Mr. CARBERY. 1 will give way with pleas- ure, sir. Mr. BURNS. The gentleman speaks of a remedy provided by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], for hasty legislation. I would like to inquire where the remedy is, and whether the same vote which passes in the first place does not pass in the second? Mr. CARBERY. Well, sir, in answer to the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], and to give him a familiar illustration, I would say, that I should think that he himself might have learned from the history of the last ten days in the Convention, that there is some virtue in re- consideration. So much for the present. I was about to say, Mr. President, that, some time ago, some remarks were made to the effect that it was an unmanly thing for any sovereign citizen to confess that he could follow a leader, or that any such thing as following a leader was at all compatible with the dignity of Rep- resentatives of portions of the people in Con- vention assembled. It struck me very forcibly at the time, that gentlemen were forgetting that the great God who made us has not made us all alike; that there were some men born to be kings — the strong men of whom Carlyle speaks — men who were destined for kingly power when their brain walls first began to be erected, who were kings at their birth; and, al- though no mortal hand may have put the scepter in their hands, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords gave them a com- mission and told them to go forth and rule, in a less absolute sense, in society, in politics, in social life, in literature, or wherever there are men to rule — to rule by the light of intel- lect, by the light of quick perception and strong judgment. And these are the men whom it is an honor to follow ; these are the men whose names a man may inscribe in his heart of hearts, and to whom he may be leal and passionately devoted while his life lasts. Some such men as we have amongst us, and the long past is strewn with them, as is the firmament with stars. Where would England’s history Day.] February 4, 1874.] THE VETO POWER. Carbery, Hoadly, Burns, Hitchcock, 1087 be, without the leaders of her democracy— not to mention the men who stood against the Stuarts, an epoch in history to which allusion has been playfully made by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] ? What would England be except for the Democrats of that day? What would England be without her Cobden and her Bright, who live as common men? What would France be in literature, and per- haps in politics, without her Voltaire or her Bousseau? These men were all leaders, and yet common people, who brushed against their fellow-men, shoulder to shoulder, and lent their inspiration to other men, and national re- demption and national safety followed them. What would American history have been, think you, in the very beginning, except for the surveyor of Virginia, except for the loyal- hearted orator, Patrick Henry? Or without such a man as Adams ? Or, in a later day, what would she have done but for the rugged boy of Irish descent, who, behind his cotton- bales, gave a lesson to the flag of St. George which it has never forgotten? And, sir, to narrow down the reasoning, so as to apply it to myself, and to my surroundings — here, in this Hall, we have men whom I am proud to follow, and whose intuitions and knowledge of the past, and whose strong minds have thrown a light upon this very subject under discussion that is “ a light unto my feet,” and I feel thankful to them for it. I feel thankful to my friend from Butler [Mr. Campbell], who has sounded so timely a tocsin of alarm, which I hope will draw in the stragglers who have been seduced away from the old flag of the State to follow some new and gaudy butterfly banner. I hope it will bring them back — bring the solid men, the thoughtful men of the State, back to the facts of our history. We do not want an experiment of this kind for many reasons, and for one reason in particu- lar. There are many men in the State whom I should not like to endow with the extraordinary power which is sought to be given to the Exec- utive of the State ; for, although a good man might use the power given to him for the goo$ of the people, a bad man, sir, in that place, might act in complicity with great interests in this State for the purpose of defrauding the people of the State of the right to govern themselves. It is true that the power returns to the people periodically and often, and that that might make against the conclusion which I have drawn ; but, if it does, it is equally fatal to the reasoning of the gentlemen on the other side. The power goes back to the people — and, by the way, in the course of this discussion, something wassaid about professions of faith, referring to what a man’s politics were, and what they were not, and it was boldly asserted that coercion — force — was the true Democratic doctrine. Sir, I re- spectfully dissent from such an assertion. Mr. HOADLY. Will my colleague permit me a question ? Mr. CARBERY. Yes, sir. Mr. HOADLY. Does that gentleman mean us to understand that it would not be proper to maintain the integrity of the Union, public order, by coercion ? Did Jackson support such a doctrine ? Mr. CARBERY. That is too broad an as- sertion. But I do maintain that he was a truer and more philosophical Democrat than ever Andrew Jackson was, who said that all virtue in the Government comes from the consent of the governed. Mr. HOADLY. All virtue? Mr. CARBERY. Well, yes, perhaps that is not literally what is written down, but it has the essence of what is written — but I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, I cannot quibble on these things. I was about to say that a modern Democrat, born on the other side, John Stuart Mill — of whom I have no doubt that my friend is a dili- gent student, because I find some splendid phi- losophy, and many beautiful ideas sparkling out in his discourses — themselves always elo- quent and instructive — has not written down that coercion is the first and fundamental law of Democracy, but something very different from that; and he has written some glorious sentences to prove that there is no tyranny so monstrous as the tyranny of a mere majority. Mr. BURY S. Right there I want to stick a pin . We want to guard against that tyranny of the majority by referring questions back to the people. Mr. CARBERY. I am afraid the gentleman is going the wrong way so reach his object. Mr. BURNS. Not a bit of it. Mr. CARBERY. I cannot understand the reasoning by which the gentlemen arrive at that conclusion, especially when we transfer our views from Ohio to the broader field of Fed- eral politics, to which my mind has been di- rected, and if I did not succeed in carrying my friend from Richland [Mr. Burns], along with me, it is owing entirely to the weakness of the pinion — I was not equal to the load. [Laugh- ter.] I would ask the favor of this Convention now of permitting me to suspend what I have to say. It is now nearly half-past five o’clock, and I should like to resume to-morrow. [“Agreed!” “agreed.”] Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the gentleman from Hamilton will give way, I will move that the Convention do now adjourn. Which motion was agreed to. Whereupon (at 5:20 p. m.) the Convention adjourned. 1088 [106th THE VETO POWER. Waddle, Rickly, Humphreville, Carbery. [Thursday, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTH DAY OF THE CONVENTION. FORTY-FOURTH DAY OF THE ADJOURNED SESSION. Thursday, February 5, 1874. NINE AND ONE-HALF O’CLOCK A. M. The Convention re-assemhied pursuant to adjournment: the President in the Chair. Prayer by Rev. W. T. Moore, of the Central Christian Church. The Roll was called, and eighty members an- swered to their names. EXCUSED. Mr. Shaw was excused from answering at Roll-call. Mr. White, of Hocking, was excused for ab- sence yesterday and Tuesday. The Journal was read and approved. INVITATION TO VISIT WORK-HOUSE. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a communication from W.L. Thompson, Secre- tary of the Board of Directors of the Cincinnati Workhouse, tendering an invitation to the President and members to be present at the chapel services of that institution on Sunday morning, the 8th instant. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. Mr. WADDLE presented the petition of Ham- ilton Scott, and thirty-two other citizens of Coshocton county, for an acknowledgment of Almighty God and the Christian Religion in the Constitution of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. RICKLY presented the petition of Syl- vester M. Douglass, and four other citizens of Franklin county, asking that the manufacture and traffic in intoxicating liquors, as a bever- age, in this State, shall hereafter be prohibited. Which was referred to the Committee on Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. CONSIDERATION OF PENDING PROPOSITION. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. As there seems to be no miscellaneous business offered, I move that the Convention now proceed to the con- sideration of Proposition No. 190. Which was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question pending is on agreeing to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Carbery] has the floor. Mr. CARBERY. When the Convention ad- journed last evening, we were in the midst of the discussion of a very interesting subject, and I was engaged in the review of the speech of my colleague [Mr. Hunt]. I want to say here, that I hope nobody will, for one moment, im- agine that the facetiousness with which I re- ferred to the gentleman’s remarks was in any way disrespectful ; quite the contrary. There is nobody in this Convention or elsewhere who has a higher appreciation of the talent and genius of my young friend, than I have. I can predict for him a brilliant future; and if I should not be permitted to be personally pres- ent on the day when his success culminates, I hope that in the spirit, at all events, I shall be present to offer my congratulations. Mr. Hunt dwelt long upon the necessity there was of keeping separate the three Departments I of government in the State — the Legislative, i the Judicial and the Executive. His theory he stated with great lucidity and at great length, but I mistake very much if the same felicity was displayed in the application practically to the question under discussion : I. The Legislative Department is to make the laws. II. The courts, to define and construe them, and, III. The Executive, to enforce them. But my friend proposes to invade the first, by giving to the Governor a negative voice equal to three-fifths of the Representatives of the people; thus stepping out of his sphere to ob- struct and hinder the popular branch of the government. But it is said this is done to save the people from bad laws, to save the people from them- selves, to interdict their chosen ones, and to say to them dictatorially, “thus far shalt thou go, and no further.” This would be the inauguration of disorder. How much more simple, how vastly more in consonance with the spirit of our government and the habits of the people, is the mode pro- posed by the substitute of the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Campbell]. He proposed that the Chief Executive Officer of the State shall sub- mit his objections to the obnoxious law as the chosen one of the whole people, in the light of reasonable authority and with all the dignity of his high office, calling on the General As- sembly to weigh well and reconsider their ac- tion, and then leaving where it belongs the en- tire responsibility. Should it turn out that the Legislature more correctly interpreted the peo- ple’s will, all well. No man has any reason to complain, and the people will think well of their Chief Magistrate, whose vigilance prompted him to interfere. But if, on the other hand, the THE VETO POWER. Garber y, Bishop. 1089 Day.] February 5 , 1874 .] Legislature shall have misjudged the popular symptoms, is the fault of the General Assembly irreparable ; are the law or laws irrepealable ? Not at all. The power inherent in the people will reveal itself in the next election, and again the will of the freemen of Ohio will be reflect- ed in the Legislature. Sir, this is the true rem- edy ; it is that course which will leave no sore- ness behind. It is the course that will not lead to estrangement and rivalry between two great departments of our State government. And since the refrain of the gentlemen who oppose this substitute generally starts from the same note in the gamut, and through all its variations of high pitch and low, is characterized by a wondrous agreement, perhaps the answer to my younger colleague will, in a measure, be taken for an answer to all. If there was any addi- tional reason urged by my friend who last spoke, I fail to recall it, and I am obliged to weigh his advocacy by this hard standard of facts, and refuse all credit to the wealth of rhetoric by which they were embellished. With reference to the argument of my distin- guished friend, Judge Hoadly, I must say what all feel who presume to cross his keen-edged Damascus blade, that in any attempt to do so, I find myself realizing a genuine solicitude for my own dearly beloved cuticle. But I feel encourag- ed somewhat by the reflection that my poor criti- cism may be applied to the elegant extracts with which he favored the Convention, andwhich com- prised much the larger part of the argument. The honorable gentleman, by himself and witness- es, proceeded to prove that it was a mere fortui- tous accident which excluded the veto from our former Constitution — or, at least, from the old- est one. I feel like complimenting fate and the irascible Governor St. Clair, for procuring this most useful accident, which resulted in the peace and happiness of the State for seventy years. It reminds me of an anecdote related of the late President Lincoln, and his humor- ous and caustic reply to some soreheads who were urging complaints against Grant on ac- count of his fondness for a certain liquor, “ that he sincerely wished that some of his maligners might be induced to try some of it too, and mayhap the experiment might result in something like the success which distinguish- ed the man whom they assailed.” So I say to the gentleman : God bless the accident and make it perpetual, which has resulted so well for our good State. Sir, 1 can see in the attempt to imbed this strange thing in the organic law, more of the zeal of the doctrinaire than the calm wisdom of the statesman ; and I am inspired to say to to this body, reflect well upon the great tri- bunal to which your work, with all its imper- fections, has finally to be submitted. Remember that strong common sense and strong conservatism which mark the masses of our fellow-citizens, and refrain from inviting them to stamp with the seal of their approba- tion this new feature, whose presence in the .Constitution was entirely unsought by them. I thank the Convention for the attention, much beyond their deserts, which they have accorded to my remarks. They present, per- haps, more warmth, both of commendation and disapproval, than is common in debate; but I y. n-71 beg to say that, although passing two-thirds of my life among them, I have utterly faded to acquire the phlegm of the Anglo-Saxon, and therefore express love and hate with all the ar- dor of Rob Roy, McGregor, of Owen Roe O’Neil. Mr. BISHOP. I have listened to my dis- tinguished friend and colleague [Mr. Hunt], with a great deal of pleasure. I had thought of making some remarks on the veto power; but had come to the conclusion, after hearing the arguments of my young friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], that it was wholly unnecessary, and I should certainly not have done so, had not the gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. Carbery], asked the friends of the veto measure, to show when a demand for the veto had been made. I propose, sir, in a very few words, to give the gentleman an instance where a demand has been made, and that, very close at home. The gentleman will doubtless remember that the people of our city asked the Legislature to give the Mayor the veto power. He will re- member, sir, that that power was granted to the Mayor, and he will also remember that an or- dinance was presented to the common council of this city, which was very adroitly drawn up ; it was very ingeniously worded; so much so, that the most astute minds in both of those bodies did not discover its bearing until after it had been referred to the Committee, was in- dorsed by the Committee, and was presented to the lower Board. It passed that Board, went to the Board of Aldermen, and went through almost unanimously. Finally, it was discovered that there were some very ingenious parts in that ordinance ; something that was calculated to take from the city, powers which it did not wish to delegate to anybody. What was the demand made upon our Mayor ? The papers, I believe I may say, unanimously, after they saw the force of the bill, demanded that he should veto it within the time prescribed by law. The demand was made just before the election, and he was threatened with defeat if he did not exercise the power that was delegated to him. He did not doit; he failed. Perhaps he thought it was not best, according to his judgment — I will put the best and most chari- table construction upon it — but what was the result? The people of Cincinnati decided against him. They demanded, almost unani- mously, that the measure should be vetoed ; he failed to do it, and the result of it was (whether that was the cause of it or not, I will leave the people to judge) that although he belonged to the then dominant party, he was defeated for re-election. I will say, that had not my colleague asked for an instance, I should not have made the re- marks that I have. I am aware that there is much opposition to the veto po.wer being incorporated in the organic law of our State, but, notwithstanding the per- tinent arguments eloquent speakers have made against it, I am still of the opinion that, as a safeguard against haste and improper legisla- tion, it is important that we should retain it, as provided in the section reported from the Com- mittee of the Whole. It is, certainly, not vest- ing too much power in an efficient Executive, a man of experience and decision of character, 1090 [106th THE VETO POWER. Bishop, Barnet, Horton. such as should always occupy the gubernatorial chair of our great and growing State, to place upon him the responsibility of criticising, with watchful care, every hill that passed the Legis- lature, with the power, if he deemed it in any way prejudicial to public interest, to return it, with his objections, for a more careful and thoughtful consideration. The effect of this safeguard has been felt, and appreciated, in States where the tests of its efficiency have been tried. The great complaint of the day is, that private interests and private welfare are daily sacrificed before the increasing power of mon- eyed monopolies and corporations. Their influ- ence is too often felt in the halls of the Legisla- ture. But, if higher, and beyond the circle of their influence, there is another authority, which has the power to apply the brake to hasty and ill-considered legislation, and call for a searching analysis of its objects and aims, the welfare of the public is better guarded, and their protection better insured. It is too often the case — in the General Assembly, as in the city government — that measures, seemingly of minor importance, but, in truth, big with evil conse- quences to the people, skillfully engineered, without attracting notice or comment, are pressed to a vote, and passed. No one is to blame, for no censor exists, whose dutj' - is co- extensive with tne State. If, however, it is the duty of the Executive, before such bills become law, to carefully examine them, in all their re- lations and bearings to the public, their evil points are brought to the surface, and, on re- turning them to the Legislature, with his rea- sons for not signing, their improprieties are fully laid before the body, and an opportunity given them to correct their former error. Another great advantage of the Chief Executive of the State possessing this power is this : Every bill introduced, and passed, in the Legislature, re- ceives a strict and scrutinizing investigation. It is often the case that members of the Legisla- ture, as we all know, vote upon bills presented without fully understanding either their merits or demerits. And I do not say this in derogation of the members, for it would be a physical im- possibility for any one member to understand, thoroughly, all the measures voted upon in the House ; and, in this way, bills are often passed, which, had they received closer study, would have been indignantly rejected. This hasty, careless legislation, is productive of evil, but the evil is much lessened, if not completely eradi- cated, by the careful attention which will be given it by the Chief Executive. The power to veto has been conferred upon the Governors of a large majority of the States; also, upon the Chief Executive of the United States, and has been exercised, upon several occasions, to the manifest advantage and benefit of the people. Andrew Jackson, the hero and patriot of the Hermitage, arrested, by his veto, the Maysville Road Bill, and, also, the act rechartering the Bank of the United States, in 1832 — vetoes, at that time, unpopular, but which, experience has proved, were wise and important. Much has been said about taking away the liberties of the people, by conferring the veto power upon the Governor. It does not strike me as such, but, rather, as the preservation of their liberty. No law, sir, is worthy of going upon our statute [Thursday, books which has not the merit, in itself, to com- mand the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Legislature, after it has been condemned by the first officer of the State. The arresting of a bill by the Governor is not killing the meas- ure, but simply referring it back to the people, or the Representatives of the people, for a more mature consideration, before that becomes a law, which, in his judgment, is antagonistic to principles of justice and prudence. Had Pres- ident Grant exercised this power of veto in the late obnoxious bill, known as the “ salary grab,” it would have redounded greatly, not only to his honor, but would have fully illus- trated the importance of such a power being vested in the Chief Executive of a nation. Un- fortunatety, he was not equal to the occasion, and left for a subsequent Congress to perform, influenced by a general and spontaneous out- burst of indignation, a duty which he, himself, should have executed. Mr. BARNET. Will the gentleman allow me a question before he takes his seat? If General Grant was clothed with the veto pow- er and did not exercise it, is not that an argu- ment against the measure itself, and is it not an argument for the other side of this question ? Here is an officer clothed with this power, and he fails to exercise it when gentlemen suppose he ought to exercise it. Mr. BISHOP. That only argues, sir, that the next time we must put in a man who is worthy of the place and capable of doing his duty. Mr. HORTON. I had not intended to take part in the discussion of this subject, at all. I confess my mind was not very clearly made up at the commencement of this debate; but there are two or three questions, or two or three practical difficulties, which suggest themselves to my mind, which I have not been able to clear up, and which have not yet been satisfac- torily cleared up to me; and I desire to present them now, merely that the friends of the mea- sure may have opportunity to offer such argu- ments and reasons as will settle the questions and doubts in my mind. Now, sir, it matters very little to us what may have been the history of the veto power; it matters very little to us whence it may have come or what may have been its practice in other countries. I apprehend that nowhere can it be found that in a representative democratic government has the veto power been applied except in this country; and it will avail us very little to search for precedents in the old world. For seventy years, the people of Ohio have had a government under which they have pros- pered and flourished without it. And the prac- tical question now presented to us is, does it furnish a remedy for any ills, or guard against any dangers to which the State is subject? The burden of showing this rests on those who pro- pose the change. The veto is no part of law- making, it is simply a power to prevent the making of laws, and the only reason which has or can be adduced in its favor is, that it is a j check upon, and tends to prevent the enactment’ of bad laws. There is no pretense that it is designed to create good laws ; it is purely and essentially negative in its character. Does it * then accomplish the purpose for which it is de- THE VETO POWER. Horton, IIoadly. 1091 Day.] February 5 , 1874 . signed? Does it have a tendency to prevent the enactment of had laws? If so, then most cheerfully will I vote in favor of it. The friends of the measure offer us, for its support, argu- ments drawn from theory, and in support of their their theory, cite us to experience of the result of the exercise of the power where it has existed. We are told, and this is the theory of the friends of the measure, that it will be a check upon hasty, ill-considered, improper legislation; that the Governor, being vested with this power, will thereby be enabled to, and will interpose it to pre- vent the enactment of laws of this character. This may be, and doubtless is, to some extent, true, and I have no doubt that much benefit may be ex- pected, and will result from the judicious exer- cise of the power. But, sir, there are other considerations than this. It will not do for us to inquire simply, whether the Governor may make this an instrument, powerful as it is in his hands, for doing good, without inquiring what its effect will be in other departments of the government. Sir, a skillful player, when he decides to move a piece upon the board, not only considers the advantages to be derived from the forward movement of the piece in question, but he must also consider the effect the change of position will have upon the balance of his men, and the danger to which the change may subject them. He will look well to see what he is in danger of losing, as well as what he may hope to gain. Mr. President, it is not so much the doubt as to what we may gain, as the fear of what we may lose, that induces me to distrust the propriety of the proposed change in the organic law of the State. Under the present Constitution, the sole responsibility for the enactment of laws rests upon the General Assembly ; its determination is final. If bad laws are passed, there is no escape from, no shifting of, the responsibility. The people know just where to look to find the wrong-doers, and there is no escape for them from the condemnation due to their conduct. This fact of the immediate, undivided, and com- plete responsibility of the General Assembly for all laws passed, is one of paramount im- portance, and of which we should not lose sight. It ought to, and beyond all question does, exert a powerful conservative and tonic influence upon that body. There is nothing which more strongly tends to keep men hon- est, upright, and straightforward, in any posi- tion, than the knowledge of the fact that great responsibilities rest upon them ; it has an enno- bling, elevating, and strengthening influence, which stands peerless in its power over the ac- tions of men. Strike down in a man all sense of responsibility for his conduct, and you de- stroy all probability that his actions will be worthy of respect; but hold him to a high re- sponsibility, and then, if there be any good in him, it will surely come forth. That the veto power, in the hands of the Governor, will arrest much bad legislation, is no doubt true; but will it not, by releasing the General Assembly from the sole responsibility for bad laws, so far reduce the tone, standing, and character of that body that bad laws will much more easily find their way through it ? I fear that it will ; and I think that by it you will have lost to your General Assembly more than you will have gained from your Executive. After all, say what you will, the Leg ; slature is the power that makes your laws; it is there they are con- ceived; it is there they are brought forth, and the Legislature must continue, always, to be the real responsible party for the laws of your country. And is it not better, Mr. President, that we should hold them to a strict, entire, and undivided responsibility, than that we should enable them to throw oft upon somebody else the responsibility that ought to devolve upon them ? When the General Assembly may pass crude and illy considered laws, and then throw the responsibility of arresting their further pro- gress, over upon the Executive, I very much fear, sir, that the little check that we shall have gained from the Executive, we shall have pur- chased by a surrender of the greatest measure, the greatest safe-guard that we have, or can possibly have, in the fact that there is a sense of responsibility, and is a responsibility, upon the part of the General Assembly, that their actions shall be final. “Divide, and then conquer,” was the maxim of a nation that carried its conquests to the furthest parts of the known world. “Divide, and you can conquer,” is a maxim as true in political as in military science, and, Mr. Presi- dent, I know of no device among men more po- tent for bringing great disasters upon any cause than a divided responsibility. And, it is because I fear, because I very much fear, that when we have divided the responsibility, when we have placed the General Assembly in such a position as that they may hastily pass, hastily consider, and then throw the responsibility over upon the Governor, instead of gaining something, we shall have lost much that I distrust the value of the proposed change in the organic law. Why, we are referred to the example of some of our sister States ; we are told that Governor Hartranft vetoed some sixty bills passed by the last Legislature of Pennsylvania. If that be true, Isay, in my judgment, no more startling statement has been made on this floor, and none goes further to convince me of the dangerous ex- ercise of this power. Sixty bills vetoed by the Governor of Pennsylvania! Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. HORTON. Certainly. Mr. HOADLY. Supposing these vetoes to have been followed, as I believe they have, by the general approval of the people of the State, would it be an argument against or for ? Mr. HORTON. It is, to my mind, an argu- ment against, and for this reason : That when the General Assembly can feel that they can pass laws, and throw the responsibility upon the Executive, I believe that you have so far re- duced the tone, and the character, and standing of the General Assembly, that reform through them is hopeless. Now, sir, I venture to say that we have not had sixty bills passed within the State of Ohio for the last sixty years, the veto of which would have been sustained by the people ; and I believe there would not have been sixty passed in Pennsylvania that would have demanded the exercise of the veto power, if the General Assembly had been alone re- sponsible to the people. 1092 THE VETO POWER. [106th Hoadly, Horton, Yoris, Pond. [Thursday, Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me a qestion ? Mr. HORTON. Certainly. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman — from the information which he has, which 1 presume will enable him to answer the question — will the gentleman say that it is not true that at least as many as sixty bills have passed any one ses- sion of our General Assembly, in direct conflict with the Constitution, for conferring corpo- rate power? Mr. YORIS. 1 would like to answer the gen- tleman by saying that there are fifty acts in the last general statutes that ought to have been vetoed, if such a power had existed. Mr. HORTON. Well, I am not afraid to-day to compare the history of legislation in the State of Ohio for the last twenty years with that of New York or that of Pennsylvania, where they have had the veto power in full force. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow another interruption, to set myself right? I cannot acquit any legislative power of legisla- tive corruption, as I think Pennsylvania has often done, and I cannot acquit the Legislature of Ohio for violating the Constitution. That they have done in many cases, more than fifty, which are violations of those provisions of your Constitution which forbade the confer- ring of corporate power by special legislation. Mr. POND. It strikes me the courts are open. I think the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], knows that by experience. Mr. HOADLY. After the mischief is done, precisely. It is true we do succeed with the aid of Mr. Kitt&edge, our agent, in stopping a good deal of mischief before it is done. But when bonds are issued, as they are to a very large extent, my friend knows as well as I, those bonds coming into the hands of bona fide holders, are held, though issued under a law which is in direct conflict with the organic law. Mr. HORTON. I have no doubt that many bad laws are passed by the General Assemblies of every State in the Nation, but I am arguing more for the right ; and what troubles me most is, that it seems to me that, just in proportion as you divide the responsibility, just in propor- tion as you place part upon one branch of the government and part upon another, just in that proportion do you decrease the chances of good legislation and increase the chances of bad. I fear, sir, that you will find it much easier to get bad laws through the General Assembly when they may pass them inconsiderately and trust to the veto power of the Governor to pre- vent their injurious influence. I am strongly impressed with the idea that the truest guaran- ty is to hold the General Assembly solely, and and entirely, and strictly to account, and no other power. If the friends of the measure can answer me this argument, or can explain to me that this additional responsibility will tend as an additional check without increasing this danger, it will remove one objection I have to the exercise of this power. Now, one word more. By the Constitution of our State we require, to pass a law, a major- ity of all the members elected to the General Assembly. In the National Congress, a major- ity of a quorum passes a law. Now, then, we have in the lower branch of the General As- sembly, one hundred and five members. Fifty- three constitute a quorum. Twenty-seven of that number can pass a law. If twenty-seven of that number could pass a law, under the rule as it is now for the general government, or in any State, so far as I know, where the veto power exists, suppose they have a law to be passed by the general government; twenty- seven men can pass the bill, and even over the Executive veto, two-thirds of a quorum can pass it. Two-thirds of fifty-three would be thir- ty-six, so that in the general government, and under the law prevailing in Pennsylvania and New York, and in all the States where the veto power exists, thirty-six members out of a hun- dred and five could pass a law over the veto. But, sir, before a law can be passed in the first instance in Ohio, you require a majority of all the members elected to the body — in all, fifty- three votes ; so that it is possible, if you place the veto upon the same footing it has been placed elsewhere, you may pass a law over the Executive’s veto, with a less number of votes than you now require to pass it in the first in- stance. But suppose that you require two- thirds of the General Assembly to pass a law over the executive veto; you virtually give to the Governor an absolute and unlimited veto. Why? Because you must first have a ma- jority of all to pass the bill — that is fifty-three. Then, if it is vetoed, you must have two-thirds of all the members elected to pass it over the veto — that is seventy. In the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio, it would take seventy members to pass an act over the executive veto. Seventy members constitute, if I am correctly informed, a tolera- bly full attendance of that body. I leave it to gen- tlemen here who have more experience than I, whether you have not adopted a rule which vir- tually enables the Governor to place an absolute and unqualified veto upon every act of the Gene- ral Assembly; whether you have not so fixed your rule that you must have substantially a unanimous vote of the body to pass it over the veto, and even then, with a unanimous vote in favor you may have not strength enough to pass it? I say, then, that it strikes me that this two- thirds majority part of the rule is, practically, an absolute veto. It is, beyond all question, the most powerful veto power that was ever con- ferred upon the executive in a Republican gov- ernment. Mr. YORIS. I would ask the gentleman, if we are not providing in the Constitution we are now framing for the passage of certain acts by the two-thirds vote of both branches of the General Assembly? Mr. HORTON. That is true. And there were strong reasons for that; but in this case you put it in the power of the Governor to ar- rest the progress of any bill that may pass the General Assembly; and when arrested, it must be passed over his veto by a two-thirds of all, which, in most cases, would be more than the vote of every member present upon the floor; and I say, then, that practically, it amounts to an absolute veto; practically, it amounts to placing in the hands of the executive the abso- lute power to suspend all law, or the passage of all law. Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1093 February 5 , 1874 .] West, Hoadly. Mr. WEST. I have had occasion to state be- fore, Mr. President, that it is a matter of doubt- ful propriety to incorporate into the proposed plan of the Constitution we are to submit to the people, any provision that experience or reason has not demonstrated to be desirable. If the necessity of any provision be not clear, certainly we ought to pause and reflect with great deliberation before incorporating it, and ask the people to adopt, ratify and confirm it as against themselves. I have listened to this de- bate with a very considerable degree of interest. I believe that the grounds upon which the Ex- ecutive veto is urged, can be resolved into three, which I will consider in their order, and they are these : First, that it is calculated to arrest unconstitutional legislation: Second, that it is calculated to prevent partisan legislation : and third, it is calculated to restrain hasty, inconsiderate or improvident legislation. And if there be any other ground or reason that can be urged in behalf of this extraordinary power, I have failed thus far to notice it. And I de- sire to be candid and frank, and to combat each proposition in its order, and test its strength and its utility, so to speak. It is urged that to clothe the Executive with the power of vetoing or prohibiting the passage of laws will prevent unconstitutional legisla- tion ; and an array of statutes are produced to show, that af the power had been possessed by the Governor during the last ten or twenty years, that probably very many of the statutes now upon the statute book would not have be- come laws ; for that he would have interposed his power and prevented their passage. I do not so understand that the Governor would, in all cases, or in any one case, have interposed his power to have prevented the passage of any one of these laws. But I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that he might have done so. We must look, however, Mr. President, to the facts and circumstances that surround the gu- bernatorial election, and the character of the incumbent. As a general rule, he is not select- ed with a view to his profound learning in con- stitutional law. He is not intended, designed or supposed to be one that has experience and skill in the mysteries of constitutional inter- pretation ; but is generally selected because, it may be, of his personal popularity, because he is one upon whom a large number of votes may be concentrated, on account of some distin- guished military or other service rendered for the Republic; and a feeling or sense of grati- tude goes out towards him, and he is re- warded for those distinguished services. He is called to the Chair, not with a view to his law-understanding capacity or law-making capacity, but rather with a view to securing the strength requisite to his elevation, and with a view simply to his fitness to execute the laws enacted by the proper department, and ex- pounded by the proper tribunal. Now, Sir, for what purpose is our Judicial Department crea- ted, but to expound the Constitution and Daws? We, to-day, are engaged in the busi- ness of creating a veto and nothing more. To-day we are engaged in the important and responsible duty of fixing a permanent and organic veto upon the tyrannical power of the I majority. That is what we are engaged in to- day, and nothing else — the fundamental law, that the people themselves, otherwise than in the mode provided by that law, shall not in- fringe or contravene. And we are, to-day, en- gaged in providing a judicial tribunal, whose duty it shall be, and whose function it shall be — because of their profound learning, because of their great wisdom, because of their deep knowedge of the law and of legal interpreca- tion — to say to the people, when their voice shall have been expressed through the law- making tribunal, that they are not correct, that you have mistaken the limit of your power — the fundamental law that you have enacted ; this great organic veto upon your powers inter- poses, and prevents your ever giving validity and effect to so much of your law as you have expressd in the statute. Is not that sufficient? Is it not sufficient that we have a judicial tribu- nal, open at all times, to which application shall be made, whose decisions are final, whose interpretations shall be enforced, and shall be- come a rule of law, and of the Constitution? But, it is said, your Governor should have the power to interpose his veto upon legislative en- actment upon the ground that it is unconstitu- tional. Does that make it unconstitutional, that he vetoes it? Does it make it constitutional that he approves it? By no means. Neither the one nor the other proposition is true. He may give his Executive sanction to unconstitu- tional law; he may affix his veto to constitu- tional law, and yet return to the General Assembly that his only reason for attaching his veto is, that, in his opinion, it is unconstitu- tional ; and yet, neither the one nor the other affects, in any degree, the fact of its constitu- tionality, nor the legal effect of the enactment, nor the principle incorporated in it. Your court is the tribunal of resort wherein those great questions of constitutional law are to be decided, and become rules of action, rules to your General Assembly, rules to your Execu- tive, rules to your people, rules to your repub- lic ; and no other tribunal can be safely trusted with that great and high exercise of power. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. WEST. Yes. Mr. HOADLY. Is the gentleman aware that this state of facts exists — that the supreme court of the United States has decided that all kinds of municipal bonds, issued in the State of Iowa, are binding, although the supreme court of Iowa has decided that they were issued contrary to the Constitution of that State? And is not that an evil that could have been prevented by the exercise of the veto power by the Governor? Mr. WEST. Certainly, sir. There are many laws, mischievous laws, that might have been prevented by the Intelligent exercise of the veto power, and they might have been prevent- ed by the intelligent exercises of senatorial power, or by the intelligent exercise of repre- sentative power. There are many mischiefs that creep into our statute books for want of proper intelligence. But does any gentleman suppose that we shall place in the Executive Chair Om- niscience? Shall we elevate to that high posi- 1094 THE VETO POWER. West, Hoadiy. [106th tion of the first honor in the State a God, whose decrees are infallible, guided and directed by divine and infallible intelligence? You know we never have and you know we never will ; and although the intelligent exercise might prevent mischief ; its unintelligent exercise may do great wrong and injustice. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman permit another question? Mr. WEST. Yes; fifty. Mr. HOADLY. Does not his argument, pin it to the ultimate, amount to this, that there would he no check at all ? Mr. WEST. I am not here, Mr. President, now, to chop logic and go to the ultimate con- sequences of refined casuistry. There must be a reasonable mean ; there must be a middle ground in all human transactions and human affairs, and although the nice results of logical reasoning might lead to fine consequences, hu- man reason, human institutions, human action, must be governed by the practical and practi- cable, and not by engaging in chopping logic and refining casuistry. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate from Lo- gan [Mr. West] allow me another question? Mr. WEST. A great many of them. Mr. HOADLY. Only one ; perhaps there will be a great many. Did not our fathers define the just mean ? Would the delegate propose to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to take away the qualified veto which the President has, if he had the power to do it ? Mr. WEST. We are not now engaged, Mr. President, in that discussion, and at the proper time I may allude to the exercise of the veto power, by the Executive of the United States. But I appeal to gentlemen to tell me whether there has been in the Executive Chair for the last twenty years or thirty years more than one man who could intelligently exercise the veto power so well, so ably and so learnedly as at least four-fifths of the Senators and Representa- tives whom his veto might control. As much as I respect the man who now occupies the Chair, I could select from this body, at least a dozen or three dozen who have more capacity to exercise the veto power, than the chief mag- istrate who now occupies the Presidential chair. Mr. HOADLY. The gentleman asks a ques- tion and answers it himself. I don’t agree with the estimate he has placed upon the Gov- ernor of Ohio, or President of the United States. I don’t know which he refers to, but I will take them both ; for, I take it, there have been a great many superior men in both offices. Mr. WEST. I was not talking about the Governors of Ohio. They are generally a good deal better men than our Presidents, because we have a much smaller field in selecting. [Laughter.] We know our wants, and select better men. Spread out large, double districts, and you do not know who you are going to strike. Allusion has been made, Mr. President, to Iowa. I have not read the Constitution of Iowa; but I venture to guess, and I know my friend is learned in the constitutional law of Iowa, and can inform me, does not the Gover- nor of Iowa possess the veto power? A MEMBER. He does, sir. Mr. WEST. I am informed by the gentle- [Thursday, man on my left [Mr. Neal] that the Governor of Iowa possesses the veto power, and re- quires two-thirds of the General Assembly to overcome him. Now, either one or the other of two things is true : Those bankruptcy laws, that he speaks of, were carried over his veto by a two-thirds vote, and hence the inefficiency of the veto power, or else the non-exercise of the veto power ratified these unconstitutional laws, and made them constitutional, I suppose. Now, Mr. President, you see that it does not prevent bad laws, if the very case that is introduced is an illustration ; that it does not in all cases, and does not in very many cases, prevent the passage of bankruptcies and bad laws. I will point you to the legislation of our country for the last eighty years. Tell me how frequently the Executive veto has been exercised over the legislation of the United States? and the times when it has been exercised are not certainly established to have in all cases been judicious. I know it is claimed that the veto of the United States bank saved America from a great financial calamity. Sir, I do not know that this is true. I do know, however, that it reduced the Na- tional bank to a State institution. I do know, that upon the heels of that veto sprang into existence more than nine hundred shin-plaster institutions, under State authority. I know that by inflation the whole commercial business of the country became deranged, demoralized, and disorganized. The consequence was na- tional bankruptcy. From that bankruptcy, the young and vigorous energies of a young and vigorous nation ultimately recuperated and, in spite of the veto, we became a great, and pow- erful, and prosperous, and wealthy people. Whether the veto brought that prosperity, or whether we reached it in spite of that veto, neither the gentleman nor I, nor any but Om- niscience can tell ; yet despite of it, we came to what we are. What we might have been, had it not been exercised, God only knows. They are inclined to ascribe to his veto a quality it did not possess. I have no objection. It is an innocent kind of patriotism, and reflects great honor upon Old Hickory, whom I love, and always did. Now, Mr. President, it is said that it will pre- vent the enactment of unconstitutional laws, and we have instanced the parallel of the Brit- ish Parliament and the veto of the British crown. I beg, sir, to say to you and to the Convention, that no parallel exists between the British government and the government we are about to establish, and under which we have lived for a long period of time. The govern- ment of Great Britain is without a written Con- stitution. Her Parliament exercises unlimited and uncontrolled authority. Her Constitution is simply the embodiment of unwritten cus- toms that have grown up in times past out of the experience and the necessities of past ages. The branches of the British Parliament, of the legislative power of England, consists of the three estates, King, Lords and Commons, and without the consent of any one of these three no law can be enacted. It is supposed that the British crown — the dignities and independence 1 of the British crown — require in it the posses- I sion of certain personal prerogatives. They ' have been assigned, the people of England as- Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1095 February 5 , 1874 .] West, Root. certaining and measuring these prerogatives, and believing their existence in the crown to be entirely consistent with the liberties of the people, they consent that those prerogatives shall remain in the possession of the crown. And the Great Charter — the approval of the Great Charter was wrested from King John. The writ of habeas corpus was extorted from a later monarch. When this had become law the Lords or the Commons of England alone could not repeal, abrogate or destroy. They are the established statutes of England and govern to secure it in its liberties. Now, Mr. President, I come to the preroga- tive veto. It is permitted to be possessed by the crown of England for one single purpose and none other, and it has not been exercised, and never can be exercised by a British mon- arch, unless he attempts to trample down the liberties of his nation. It is the possession of the veto power to protect him in the possession of his personal prerogatives, nothing more. Mr. ROOT. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. WEST. Certainly. Mr. ROOT. Upon a careful reading of the history of England, I will ask the gentleman, if he can hear without interrupting his argument, if he does not understand that since the time of William of Orange, the dissolution of Parlia- ment affords the authority in the crown which the veto before that time had given him ? Mr. WEST. Certainly. Mr. ROOT. And that the Prime Minister, being really the ruling heart of England for the time being, when Parliament votes any- thing indicating a want of confidence in tiie minister in authority, he can dissolve Parlia- ment? Mr. WEST. Certainly. Mr. ROOT. Well now, is it not practically the veto power, that is, the one man power, when called by a plain name, and is it not exer- cised as effectually under the practice of the dissolution of Parliament now, as it was under William of Orange, who used it most freely? Mr. WEST. I thank the gentleman- That is all true. I am speaking now of the veto power, pure and simple. The possession of the power to negative the passage of laws is retained by the crown, in order that the crown may protect itself against infringements upon its prerogative. Those prerogatives are familiar to every reader of English law, and that the veto power, pure and simple, is authorized to control in England in its ordinary and usual mode of exercise. Now, the dissolution of Parliament, I am aware, is simply an appeal of the British crown to the British nation. When measures of the minis- try are defeated, and there is danger of opposi- tion to Securing control of the enactment of laws that are not acceptable to the crown, or for the prevailing party, for the time being, an appeal by dissolution is taken at once to the people of England, and they send up their rep- resentatives to the House of Commons, who are instructed, by force of their election, to do the will of/ the people of England. That, sir, is not necessary in a country where elections are so frequent as they are in this, where, at the end of each period of two years, an appeal, by force of the Constitution and laws, is taken directly to the people. Any and every obnoxious law that may have crept upon the statute book is repealed if the people are not satisfied with its enactment. If their representatives have gone counter to their will, if they have done wrongly or mischieviously, an appeal, by an election, to the sovereign people, to instruct their General Assembly in the ways of well doing, is taken, and from that we secure the same result that the dissolution of Parliament in England, the period of which is for three, or four, or seven years — I do not remember now which, and the result is secured and maintained. Now, sir, we have this in this country that they do not have in England, to which I desire to call attention. In England there is no writ- ten Constitution, as I have said, which measures the power of the British Parliament. What- ever becomes the solemn enactment of the House of Commons and the Crown, becomes the law of England, and there is no great establish- ment to expound the British Constitution, and ascertain whether it be infringed by the enact- ments of Parliament. They have no funda- mental veto, in the form of a written Constitu- tion, because the law of Parliament, expressed by the concurrence of the three estates, becomes the law of the land, anything in the British Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding. Not so in America. We have our written fun- damental law, prescribing the limitations of power. We, now, are here preparing that fun- damental law, prescribing the limits within which the legislative power shall be exercised. We say to the General Assembly, “all powers not withheld from you by this fundamental and original veto, may be properly exercised by you. If you attempt to exercise powers, and do exercise them, inconsistently with this funda- mental law, there stands the majesty of the judicial tribunal between you and it.” There is the tribunal to which the people of Ohio may ultimately appeal, if all things else shall fail. And, if this fundamental veto shall have been disregarded by the legislative power, the judi- cial majesty interposes its strong hand to strike down the offensive and offending statute. That is something that belongs not to the British Government. It is peculiar to our American governments and institutions and laws. We have our written Constitution, over which the legislative power shall not pass, upon which it shall not infringe, unless the majesty of the ju- diciary shall interpose. Now, sir, what neces- sity is there of clothing the Governor with power to veto laws because they may happen to be unconstitutional? None, sir, whatever. My friend has said that the mischief will have been done. True, it may have been done. The law may have passed, improperly and unconstitu- ally; but we cannot expect, as I have said, om- niscience in the General Assembly ; we cannot expect it in the Governor. We must trust to human nature as it is ; we must trust to the im- perfections of our human institutions, as they are; we must frame and adapt them to circum- stances the best we can; we must conserve the liberties of mankind, and, at the same time, conserve the ends and purposes of justice be- tween individual members of the same family. We can only do this by the constitution of a 1096 THE VETO POWER. West, Yoris. [ 106 th [Thursday, proper tribunal, with proper checks and bal- ances. Our Constitution is the great funda- mental check. Outside of that, the legislative power is, and must be, omnipotent. We cannot restrain it. There is no necessity, then, for the exercise of the veto power. As I have said, the court may interpose, and set aside unconsti- tutional laws. I know that mischiefs may tem- porarily result, and may, sometimes, perma- nently result. They are the accidents of our institutions, against which we cannot guard, and we must not create a greater mischief in order that we may destroy a smaller one. Now, Mr. President, I shall pass to the con- sideration of the next reason urged for the veto power ; that it will prevent partisan legisla- tion. I have never in my life heard of a politi- cal Governor vetoing a political measure, ad- vocated by his political party. Such an anomaly may have happened, but I have yet to hear of it. Why, sir, your Governor is the standard-bearer and the representative head of a political faction. Generally they are elevat- ed to power upon the crest of some partisan billow. They are generally in accord with the legislative majority. The same tempest that carries an Executive into the Chair, carries a majority of his political friends with whom he sympathizes in sentiment, into official position. This is the general rule and the exceptions are rare. Such being the case, if the political ma- jority incorporate a statute, embodying the pe- culiar political partisan principles of that ma- jority, do you not know, sir, that that Gover- nor, elected by the same political party, sympa- thizing in the same sentiment, will not rebuke his friends who have embodied, in the form of law, that for which they have struggled in the political contest, and will accord to them the exercise of power, by ratifying the political principle or political measure whatever it may be? Such is the rule always. Now, the idea that the veto power prevents partisan legislation, is — well I have no words to ex- press my astonishment that such an idea pre- vails. [Laughter]. Now, I pass to the next proposition — but I fear, Mr. President, that I am occupying too much time. [Several MEMBERS. “ Go on.”] Mr. WEST. The next proposition is this, that the possession of the veto power will pre- vent hasty, rash or improvident legislation. I concede, sir, that it sometimes may do so, but that will rarely be the case, and, as an example, I instance that the eighty years’ possession of the veto power by the Chief Executive of the United States, has simply required him to sit in the ante- room of the Senate Chamber upon the last day of any session of Congress, and register his name approvingly to the bills as they are poured in by page, clerk, and messenger, and whatever other force or power is adequate to overwhelm him with the llood of bills that are then crowded upon him. Hasty and inconsider- ate legislation prevented by the veto power! When, in the last nights of the session, not only the President himself, but sometimes, I am told, one or two clerks are authorized to write for him in his presence, his signature, because of the irritability he is suffering for want of suf- ficient strength to write his name as fast as the bills are presented to him. “ Prevent hasty and inconsiderate legislation ! ” Why, sir, the Presi- dent does not read, and does not and cannot know what is in the bills presented to him, and he does not pretend to know only some of the great important political measures — it may be where an opposition to his political faction might be in- corporated, which demands that he should look to it. Why, sir, was there not a case for the exercise of the veto power very recently? Might not President Grant have placed himself upon the highest pinnacle of immortality by the judicious timely exercise of his veto power, in reference to the infamous bill which passed Congress on the third of March last? Hasty legislation is not prevented, as a general rule, by the executive veto. But, suppose it to be so. If simply the haste of legislation is to be averted, then, the same measure, which, if passed hastily, will be vetoed, if passed with deliber- ation and consideration ought to be ratified, ought it not, if, to prevent hasty legislation, is the only consideration ? Then, if deliberation is secured, if calm deliberate thought and re- flection shall have been attained, the same mea- sure that the President ought to veto, because of its haste, he ought not to veto when it is calmly and deliberately considered. That is the result of the logic, and there is no escape from that proposition. Mr. YORIS. I will ask the gentleman, if he wants us to understand him to claim that all deliberate legislation is just, and proper, and ex- pedient? Mr. WEST. My friend does not want me to say that I would do that. Mr. YORIS. Then your reasoning is cer- tainly inconsistent with your belief. Mr. WEST. It is not my reasoning I am em- ploying now, I am using your reasoning to show you how fallacious it is, and that gentle- men may understand directly where it leads. Mr. YORIS. The gentleman’s position was, the use of the veto power was only needed to check hasty and inconsiderate legislation, and the conclusion to be drawn from his remarks, was, that there were no evils attending calm and deliberate legislation. Mr. WEST. The gentleman does not seem to comprehend what I did say. I will state it again. I say to you this : if the Governor is to exercise the veto merely because the bill upon which it is exercised has been hastily passed — now you understand it. Mr. YORIS. Yes. Mr. WEST. And that is the only reason, simply because the bill has been hastily passed. Then, if that reason be removed, if it be passed with deliberation, the reason for the exercise of it is taken away, and, therefore, it ought not to be exercised. Mr. VORIS. I have never claimed, and if anybody has ever claimed that, that was the only reason I never knew it before. Mr. WEST. I never did either, nor never expect to, for I have answered two other rea- sons and am now answering a third. Now, Mr. President, the proposition is unanswerable, if it simply provides that the veto should be exercised because a measure has been hastily considered. If that is the only reason, then if deliberation and mature consideration be given THE VETO POWER, West, Hoadly. 109 ? Day.] February 5 , 1874 .] to the measure, the absence of that reason fol- lows, and the Governor has no right to exer- cise his veto upon that ground. That is the point I make. He may have other grounds, but upon that he has no right; and, if, after he has exercised his veto upon that ground the bill can be sent back, and deliberation, considera- tion and mature reflection secured to the re-pas- sage of that bill by the same majority, if re- passed it is divested of the reason that before existed, which justified the exercise of the veto on its first passage; and, hence, the bill when re-enacted with deliberate calmness and consid- eration should become a law, if no other rea- son exists against it. That is the point, and my friend from Summit [Mr. Voris] may an- swer it at the proper time. These are the prin- cipal considerations that lead me to oppose this measure ; but I desire to call the attention of the Convention to two or three minor points. Mr. HOADLY. Before the delegate from Logan [Mr. West] proceeds, I desire that he would allow me to call his attention to another matter. Has the delegate never known a case in which, by reason of the distribution of dis- tricts, the majority in the Legislature really rep- resented a minority of the people? Is it an un- usual thing to the country that that should be so? Mr. WEST. That is true; and I hardly ever knew a Governor in my life that was not elect- ed by a minority — scarcely ever. The present Governor was elected by a small minority. You have your Prohibitionists, you have your New Departurists, and your Grangers, and your old-line Democracy, and your Republicans, all in the field, and each of them has his force to back him ; and the one whose gubernatorial candidate happens to come out a few votes ahead, although he may not have half the votes of Ohio, becomes Governor. That occurs, and will more frequently, sir, than your Legislature shall represent the minority of the people. Y"ou have now in your gubernatorial chair one that does not represent a majority of the voters of Ohio, but a minority only of some twenty or thirty thousand. That may be: these matters oc- cur, and in the future, will occur very fre- quently. For, let me say to gentlemen, that the fogs are gathering in the distance, and when the election of next November shall be counted out, the slates of the old liners will be smashed to pieces. Mr. HOADLY. Both sides ? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir ; both sides. And your Grangers will flourish their banners in triumph over the graves of both the old parties. [Laughter.] They may be dug up and resur- rected, reanimated and revived ; but they will be buried for the time being. [Laughter.] Gentlemen who look to the political effects of the existing political parties, just now, reckon without their host. That is dead sure. What I was about calling attention to, was the great peculiarity of some portion of this Constitu- tion. It is this : I speak, first, of the practical workings. My venerable friend from Hamil- ton [Mr. Bishop], who sits nearest me, has given an instance of the terrible virtue of the veto power being possessed by the mayor of the city of Cincinnati — that veto power when, by some species of fraud or chicanery, a measure had gone through the Common Council, unwit- tingly, and the people of Cincinnati, in their majesty, appealed to their chief executive to veto it ; and it was a case in which he had the veto power, by which he might have secured the salvation of the city. It turned out that the mayor did not veto it. He did not exercise the veto. What good did the possession of it then do ? A MEMBER. It killed him. [Laughter]. Mr. WEST. Yes, it would kill many a Gov- ernor. I submit it would kill him if he did veto it, and it would kill him if he did not. A MEMBER. That was what he was afraid of. Mr. WEST. Yes, that was what he was afraid of ; and no matter which way he should have exercised the power, that would have been the consequence. Again, Mr. President, the veto power was not always exercised, when it might have been, judiciously. Andrew Johnson exercised it at onetime; and under what circumstances? He had been approached, as will always be the case where the Executive possesses the veto power, by members of Congress, desiring to conciliate his favor, desiring to secure his approval, with hat in hand, bowing obeisance to the Executive, and framing their legislation in accordance to his wish and will, if there be anything in it that is likely to excite his opposition. The approval of the Executive becomes a great law-making power of the United States, or of the State. His will will be consulted in advance, and your House of Representatives and your Senate, when a possible controversy may arise between them and the Executive, will “cringe the supple hinges of the knee” at the Executive ante- chamber, in order “that thrift may follow fawn- ing.” It is done to-day, sir, in Washington City. It is done every day. It was done with Andrew Johnson. You remember how Trum- bull exposed the secrets of the charnel house, when Johnson had vetoed the Personal Liberty bill. Trumbull declared that Johnson himself had written in the body of the bill certain provi- sions, that made it acceptable to his majesty, and even with all that, vetoed it. I do not want the period to arrive when I am a legislator — if I ever should be called to hold that position— that I should be required to so humiliate myself as to bow obediently to a minority Governor, and ask him to incorporate in a law that was j ust, such a modification as would make it acceptable to him. Now, I come to a peculiarity we have in our Constitution, a provision that certain bills shall not be passed and become laws unless they receive a two-thirds majority of the two Houses. No claim, not provided for by pre-ex- isting law, shall be paid by appropriation, un- less it receives a majority of two-thirds. Now, Mr. President, that is a just law. It is a right- eous provision in our Constitution, to prevent these fraudulent claims from being hurried or rushed through the body, and the passage cor- ruptly obtained through the General Assembly, or any other tribunal. And, what is the effect? It goes to the Executive for his approval. He disapproves it It goes back to the General Assembly. What is the consequence? Do you require of one of these extraordinaiy bills that it shall be re-enacted by a larger vote than it 1098 THE VETO POWER. West, Hoadly. was originally enacted by ? No, sir. It sim- ply goes for reconsideration and deliberation, and, if it be again re-enacted by the same ma- jority that it was originally enacted by, it be- comes a law, the Governor’s veto notwithstand- ing. That, sir, is what ought to be asked of any other law that might be less objectionable and less calamitous in its consequences. If this extraordinary species of legislation be car- ried over a Governor’s veto by the same majority that originally enacted it, why shall not the ordinary and general legislation of the State be carried over a Governor’s veto by the same majority that originally passed it? Is there any reason, sir, for the distinction? None, whatever. If a naked majority be suffi- cient to pass a law in the first instance, a bare majority, after deliberate action and considera- tion, should be sufficient. If two-thirds are re- quired in the first instance, why shall not more than two-thirds be required in the second in- stance? It is unreasonable to so require it, and it need not and should not be. But, sir, if the Executive veto is of so much consequence and importance, why not now, to-day, incorpo- rate into our Constitution a provision that no bill shall become a law that does not receive three-fifths or two-thirds majority? Why not do that now ? Why leave it to the discretion or whim, or caprice of one man, and throw back into your legislative power some bills that may be of the most importance, and the most saluta- ry measures, and say to them, it shall not be accepted without increasing the number of votes by which it was originally enacted. And yet, these other bills may be passed by the same majority. Let us provide in the Consti- tution, to-day, if it be so important to prevent hasty legislation, that three-fifths or eleven- twentieths, or some other greater number, shall be required to fix it as a permanent rule of your Constitution, and not give it into the hands of a single man to control the legislation. Now, Mr. President, I am nearly done. It is said that mischiefs may be prevented by the possession of the veto power, and the accident that it was not given to the Governor by our original Constitution is cited. A mere accident. The people were not consulted ; but if the peo- ple had been consulted, they certainly would have given the veto power originally. I read in that old Constitution that continued to exist for fifty years, that after the year 1806, the people might, by amendment, incorporate any new provision into it which they saw proper. But, notwithstanding that provision, for a period of fifty years,' they quietly acquiesced in the provisions of that Constitution, and never complained that the Governor did not have possession of the veto power. Never ! Fifty years I know they conformed to the ac- tion of the Convention that framed that Con- stitution. When the new Convention was called, the question came up for discussion, as it came up here. The Convention rejected the veto proposition, and again the people acqui- esced for three and twenty years more; and, when this Convention was called, I venture the assertion that there were not in the broad State of Ohio a dozen voices heard to complain against that provision that excluded the Gov- ernor’s veto. I never heard of one until I came [106th [Thursday, into this Convention. The people do notask it. They do not want it. They are not com- plaining of it. They are satisfied. They have prospered. They have done well without it. Why shall we, then, embark in some new, un- tried experiment, amongst our people? Oh! but mischiefs have resulted from its want. Greater mischiefs may result from its exercise and use. I remember an instance, of which my friend is probably cognizant, when, in this same city of Cincinnati, your City Council had prepared to enter into a contract for a new let- ting of your gasworks for a period of five-and- twenty years. There assembled at the hall of conclave, the instrument was about to be signed, when a telegraphic dispatch came down from Columbus, announcing to the astonished con- spirators that a law had passed the two Houses, and been signed by the presiding officers for- bidding the ratification of their infamous swin- dle, that was to consign the people of Cincin- nati to darkness or a burden of huge taxation for another twenty-five years. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me to say, if he will take the trouble to read the statute, he will find that it had no effect whatever, in point of law, on the proposition which it was intended to defeat. That it prac- tically defeated the proposition may be true; but that, in point of law, it was so drawn that as the attorney of the gas company devised his plans, it did not defeat the measure, is beyond all doubt. Mr. WEST. That may be true, Mr. Presi- dent. I do not remember anything about the wording of the law. I know it was passed. Mr. HOADLY. I can tell the gentleman the point in a moment. The law did not prevent it, for it was not to go into operation during the terms of members then elected. Mr. WEST. Well, there is one consolation. If the mere shadow of a law had the effect of doing so much good, what would the law itself have done? [Laughter.] Mr. HOADLY. T will answer the gentle- man. That depends on whether any good was done by it. In my judgment, none whatever was accomplished. He simply misunderstood the whole measure which that was intended to defeat, and it is to-day the law of the city of Cincinnati. Mr. WEST. I am merely giving the history of it at the time. I do not know anything about it since. But if the Governor had been there with a veto, a few shares of gas stock in the pocket of the Governor, would not have cost as much as' a good many shares in the pockets of a good many members. Corruption is to be avoided. Now, it is said, Mr. President, that the Governor is to be clothed with the veto power in order that he may protect the people against combinations of the great corporations of the State, the great moneyed interests. I say to you, Mr. President, that that result will not and cannot be attained. If, sir, it be neces- sary to secure the elevation of one favorable to the interests of these great corporations in the executive chair, the combination and concen- tration of the political and financial power of these great corporations to secure that elevation will be absolutely irresistible. If the thirty thou- sand employes of your Pittsburgh Railroad, the 1099 Day.] THE VETO POWER. February 5 , 1874 .] West. twenty thousand of your Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the thirty thousand of your Lake Shore Railroad, he instructed and directed that Mr. A B is the railroad candidate for Governor, that we must have him elevated to power, in order that he will, or will not, exercise the veto power in our interest, my word for it, we will he like the State of Pennsylvania and the State of New York, only once in a great while, when the uprising of an indignant and outraged peo- ple shall come to the rescue, that you will se- cure a Governor in the executive chair that will he anything else than a mere tool of these great corporations. A MEMBER. The Grangers will attend to that. Mr. WEST. Yes; the Grangers may, sir — but they will go to sleep after a while. People are not always vigilant — never so vigilant as they ought to he. All those great moneyed institutions are ever watchful, ever grasping for success, until the indignation of an outraged public sentiment shall, temporarily, defeat and thwart them. That is the case now in Pennsyl- vania. It is the case in New York, with Gov- ernor Dix at the head of it. When Governor Dix shall pass away, and the scenes of the last four years shall have been forgotten ; when Governor IIartranft shall leave the Chair, and all the good that he has accomplished shall be settled down to quiet the people’s minds, again, the Pennsylvania Central Railroad will become the owner of the State of Pennsylvania, in fee simple, and of her Governors, as it has been, for the last twenty or thirty years. These cor- porations exercise the veto, not the Govern- or. They approve, and not the Governor. We must leave the executive free to execute the laws, and not allow him to interfere in the making of the laws. My friend has said that the Governor has no partin the law-making power. I differ from him in that. If a law originates in the House of Representatives, it does not become a law because it passes that body, until it receives the ratification of the Senate. If the Senate rejects it, it is the Senate, nevertheless, a part of the law-making power. And it can- not become a law until the Senate affirms it. If it pass the House and the Senate, it goes to the Governor, and cannot become a law until he votes affirmatively, just as the Senate voted af- firmatively, and if he votes negatively he defeats the law absolutely, except upon the happening of a certain subsequent contingency. He is a part and parcel of the law-making power. He exercises an affirmative and a negative power over the enactment of laws. Now, Mr. President, I shall not say a good many things that I ought to have said : I simply desire to say that I have no objection to a prop- osition that simply requires that the Legisla- ture shall reconsider its action, shall again de- liberate calmly, shall reflect maturely after they have passed an act, if, peradventure, it may oc- cur to the executive that they have passed over a point of importance, to consider and call their attention to it, and they can again re-enact the law, and it becomes a law. It ought to become a law until the supreme judiciary, alone, shall set it aside for unconstitutionality. The Legis- lature is the will of the people. If the people have, constitutionally, expressed their will about a matter on which the Constitution per- mits an expression, the will of the people thus expressed, ought to become the rule of action. It is said that a mere majority rule is despotic. Sir, it is not a majority rule. It is a limited exercise of the majority power. Your Consti- tution is a restraint upon the majority. It is an expression of will, which the Constitution permits. It cannot be tyrannically exercised, because it is constitutionally permitted. It can- not be discriminatingly exercised, because your Constitution forbids discriminating laws. You cannot take away the writ of habeas corpus from the people ; your Constitution forbids it. You cannot take away private property for public uses, without compensation ; your Constitution forbids it. There is your Bill of Rights, there is your Legislative Article, there is your Executive Department — these are the limits upon the otherwise uncontrolled power of the majority which permits the ex- ercise of despotism. But we are treated to a comparison, and when I have alluded to that I shall conclude. We are pointed to the State of Pennsylvania as an example; we are pointed to the State of New York as an example; we are pointed to the State of Kansas as an example, of the pos- session of the veto power in the Executive. And we are pointed to the government of the United States. I said to the gentleman, if I had strength I would speak of that. I know, or at least, I think I understand how that power was vested in the President of the United States. But no reason exists for vesting it in the Governor of Ohio that did for vesting it in the President. There was a new govern- ment, a new and untried experiment about to be launched upon the Western Continent. We had no forms of government but those that were derived from the old world as models. That government was to be one of the people in the first sense. It was to be a confederation of States that had been sovereign, but were then about to surrender their sovereignty. Each State was to be the equal of the other in the highest department of the Government. The State of Delaware and the State of Rhode Island were to be the equal of the State of New York and of Pennsylvania. In the Senate, Rhode Island with her thirty thousand voters, should be equal to New York with her million of voters. Again, the lower House was to be es- tablished and the vote for members of Congress was then by general ticket, each State voting for the entire number that was to be sent up, not by single districts, but in the aggregate, by general ticket. The interests of the several members of the Confederacy were diverse. South Carolina and Georgia were cotton States; Massachusetts, and the other New England States, were manufacturing and seafaring States; Pennsylvania and New York were commercial or iron . Their interests were some- what different, and yet the powers that were vested in the Government, of taxation, of ex- cise, of revenue, of tariff duties, and the like, were of such a character that a combination of one, two, or three of the Eastern States might be such as to secure the enactment of such leg- islation, by the Congress of the United States, as would be utterly destructive to the growing 1100 THE VETO POWER. West, Yoris, Campbell, Hitchcock, Tuttle, Root. [106th [Thursday, energies of the Western States. Or, it might be that New England and Virginia would com- bine against New York and Pennsylvania, or that some other combination of interests should arise that would work unjustly, work serious wrong to some particular locality, whose inter- ests were different form other localities that had been combined against it. In order to guard against, and to prevent these combinations, it was supposed that the possession of the veto power, by the chief magistrate, elected by the people of all the States, might be interposed to prevent the combination of the local interests of a few States against the local interests of the other States, and thus prevent the work- ing of great wrong in and through the power vested in the General Government, of discrim- inating taxation, excise, and custom laws, by which the interest of one locality could be crushed, while that of another locality could be built up. There was the secret of leaving the veto power in the possession of the Chief Mag- istrate of the United States. No such reason exists in Ohio. We are a homogeneous people. We are one people. There can be no discrimi- nating legislation, taxation, or otherwise. All the laws that operate upon one section, operate upon all of them. There can be no combina- tion, or conspiracy, or laws, by which the people of one portion of the State can oppress the in- terests, whatever they may be, of the people of another part of the State. No necessity, there- fore, exists, for any restraint of power over the legislative will, as vested by the Constitution, under the limitations of that instrument. Mr. YORIS. Then there is no danger from the overweening power of these moneyed cor- porations in Ohio? Mr. WEST. Oh, yes, my friend, there is danger from the overweening corporations ; but, whenever you vest in your Governor the power to restrain these corporations, you vest in him the power to promote the interests of those cor- porations. And, as the motive of these corpo- rations will be to corrupt your Executive, in order to advance their own interests, your cor- porations will succeed in securing your Gov- ernors, as they have only to concentrate the power which they control, and throw it upon this side or that side of a nominating conven- tion, at Columbus, to secure the nominee, and then throw their power and influence into the scale of the election, favorable to the candi- date, and they will secure the Governor. There is but one man to secure; whereas, in your Gen- eral Assembly there are 140 men to secure, many of them remote from your railroads, and their interest and influence. Less liable are they to corrupt the Legislature than they are to corrupt the Governor. Now, sir, we are pointed to those immaculate States of New York, and of Pennsylvania, and of Kansas, and Indiana. Mr. President, seventy years have rolled over the young State of Ohio. To-day she stands a giantess among her sister States; to-day she points with pride to the head of the American army, and names her Sherman. To-day she looks to the Executive Mansion, and names a son of Ohio; to-day she points with pride to the highest office in the gift of man- kind, the First Magistrate of the Ameri- can Judiciary, and he is an adopted son of Ohio. To-day, in her Cabinet is a son of Ohio. For the last ten or fifteen years Ohio, in the councils of the nation, has led the van. In purity of character, in bravery and courage upon the battle field, in the wisdom of her councils, in the Cabinet, and upon the floor of the National Legislature — wherever you have seen the sons of Ohio, there Ohio’s sons may point with pride, and name them as their brothers. This we have attained in point of personnel. Look to our material interests : with a network of iron railways threading and thwarting our State, over and across which the commerce of India passes and is debarked upon the coasts of the Atlantic. The manufactures and stuff’s of the Atlantic States necessarily find their way through our midst by our topo- graphical and geographical position, to the great market of the Mississippi and the Missouri valley. Ohio in point of wealth, in point of prosperity, in point of material devel- opment, in point of her high personnel in the councils of the State and Nation, whether it be at the Court of St. James or the Court of Madrid, or whether it be at the Coun- cils of Washington or the Councils of Colum- bus, or whether it be the great material devel- opment that makes America happy and prosper- ous ; whether it be in the religious liberty by her guaranteed to her people by the fundament- al principles of her Constitution, or whether it be in the highly developed character of our ed- ucational institutions, Ohio stands to-day upon the proud pinnacle — the highest summit of Na- tional glory. God bless Ohio without her veto ! Do not intrust it to her, if we are what we are without it ; for it may place us in the position that to-day finds Pennsylvania, and New York, and Kansas, and other States, where the cor- rupting influence of executive power has abso- lutely demoralized and crushed out the ener- gies and independence of the people. [Ap- plause.] The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell.] Mr. CAMPBELL. Before the vote is taken, I notice a clerical error in the seventh line. I will ask the unanimous consent to have the word “ elected ” inserted after the word “ members,” so that it may prevent a seeming ambiguity. The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the amendment will be ordered. Mr. FORAN. I move that the Convention take a recess. MEMBERS. No! No! Mr. HITCHCOCK. Is it in order to ask that the question be divided? The PRESIDENT. It is in order. A divi- sion is called for. The first question will be on striking out section 18. The yeas and nays were demanded. Mr. TUTTLE. I do not know but that would be more agreeable to the views of the mover. As I understand it, where it is pro- posed to substitute one thing for another, the question is not in that manner divisible. Mr. ROOT. I would like to inquire of the gentleman, if it is not his understanding, that anything that involves two propositions is di- visible ? Day.] THE VETO POWER. February 5, 1874.] Tuttle, Hitchcock, Scribner, Powell, Mueller. 1101 The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the question is divisible. Mr. TUTTLE. I do not understand that it is always divisible. I do not understand that it applies to this. The PRESIDENT. The motion of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] is to strike out section 18 and insert the substitute. Mr. TUTTLE. If it is in that form I am wrong. I understand it differently. The PRESIDENT. That is the form ex- actly. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understand that if the Convention refuses to strike out, it will be agreeing to the matter in its present form. Will it not ? The PRESIDENT. That is the rule of the Convention. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I desire, then, to offer an amendment to the matter proposed to be strick- en out, if the opportunity will hereafter be pre- cluded. I do not desire to urge a vote on this question of the substitute, but if we are to decide simply upon striking out, I will ask to amend the matter proposed to be stricken out. The President is no doubt correct. The PRESIDENT. Rule XXXIN is, that a motion to strike out and insert shall he deemed divisible. Mr. SCRIBNER. I will ask the Chair to notice whether, by the same Rule, it is not pro- vided that the failure of a motion to strike out does not preclude further amendment? The PRESIDENT. It does not preclude further amendments in the nature of an addition or striking out a word and inserting other lan- guage. The gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] has a right to better the section as it stands, before it goes to a vote. Mr. POWELL. I ask the reading of section eighteen, as it is now amended, before striking out. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] requests that section eighteen be read, as amended yesterday. The Secretary will read the section. The Secretary read : Section 18. Every bill passed by the General Assem- bly shall before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor at least three days before its adjournment sine die. If he approve it he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall send it to the House in which it originated, with his ob- jections in writing, and the House shall then proceed to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. If, after such reconsideration, a majority of the members elected thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first instance, agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other House, with the objections of the Governor, and thereupon that House shall likewise reconsider the vote on its passage. If, after such reconsideration, a like majority of the members elected to that House agree to pass the same, it shall become a law. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be- come a law in like manner as if he had signed it. The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill shall be the law, and the item or items of appropriation disapproved shall be void, unless re-passed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of entire bills after the disapproval of the Governor, Every order, resolution or vote to which the concur- rence of both branches of the General Assembly may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment or ques- tions pertaining to the transaction of businses of the two Houses), shall be presented to the Governor; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, may be re-passed by both Houses of the General Assembly, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. Mr. HITCHCOCK. My intention was to move to amend, in the thirty-first and thirty- second lines of this section. A gentleman here desires to take the vote on the motion to strike out the entire section, at this time, as a test vote. The amendment sought to be made sure of, if this provision is to be retained, I think would be agreed to by common consent. At all events, 1 will take the risk of introducing my motion to amend, and leave the question to turn upon the vote on this motion to strike out. The Chairman of the Committee who reported this Article desires that I read the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will read the amendment prbposed, for information. Mr. HITCHCOCK. It is to strike out, in the thirty-first line, the words “except on a motion to adjourn,” and insert, in place thereof, “ques- tions relating to the transaction of business by the two Houses.” The PRESIDENT. The parts are in paren- theses, which the gentleman proposes to strike out. Mr. MUELLER. I was, myself, a member of the Committee, and was opposed to the in- corporation of this provision in the Constitu- tion. I think I owe it to a great many of my old personal friends, for whom I have a great deal of respect (who differ with me on this ques- tion), as well as to myself, to give the reasons why I shall vote against the incorporation of this veto power into the new Constitution. I take my position and found my objections on principle. And in so doing, I shall admit frankly that the veto power, if intrusted to the Governor, would, in many cases, do a great deal of good. There is no doubt about it. But it is merely and only an expedient. In princi- ple, the veto power, in a Democratic State, is wrong. The people of the State elect their Legislature for the purpose of making their laws. The Legislative Article provides that the Legislative power shall be vested in the General Assembly. Here you establish a great prin- ciple, which, in a later section, is materially modified. We find, afterwards, that the Legislature is intrusted with that power; but there is another person, called a Governor, who has the right to say whether a certain Legislative measure shall become a law or not. I say the veto power is inconsistent with the Article itself. It is in- consistent with what I call good Democracy. The members of the Legislature are elected by the people, or their agents. They do the busi- ness for which they have been sent, while the Governor of the State is but an executive offi- cer, and has nothing to do with the legislative business. I know it will be claimed that he has nothing to do with the legislative business, in the exercise of the veto power; but he is doing more than meddling with legislative business. He actually may prevent the taking effect of measures which the Legislature has seen fit to Mr.’ HOADLY. Will the delegate allow a question ? Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Mr. HOADLY. In what sense are the mem- bers of the Senate and House of Representa- 1102 THE VETO POWER. Hoadly, Mueller, Hunt, Horton. f 106th tives from Cuyahoga county Representatives of the people of Hamilton county? Is not this a scheme of the geographical distribution of po- litical power, by which we construct our Leg- islature ? Is not the Governor the representa- tive of the whole people ? Mr. MUELLER. I answer the gentleman that the Senators and Representatives from Cuyahoga county are not the Representatives of that locality ; but they are the Representatives in the General Assembly for the State of Ohio : That each county electing its members, im- plies not that these are local Representatives. It is only a mode of electing them. I never consid- ered that to be local representation; and I be- lieve the time will come, when the Represen- tatives to the Legislature will be elected not by this or that locality, but by the people of the State at large ; or at least that one county may he entitled to elect a man from another county, if they think proper to do so. Mr. HUNT. I desire to ask the gentleman if he, as presiding officer of the Senate, does not know that two-thirds, or a large proportion of the legislation of the State, is determined by sectional interest and local prejudice? Mr. MUELLER. That is true. I will admit that. But what I claim here, and the reason why I take my position against this amend- ment, is, that it is relying on a mere expedient which will not help us. Instead of removing the evil by tearing up its roots, we are apply- ing patent medicine for every disease. This is only patent medicine. Mr. HORTON. I would like to ask the gen- tleman a question on that subject of local laws, whether it is not a fact that these local laws are generally passed by substantially a unanimous vote of the General Assembly, so that no veto could arrest it ? I have been told that such is the fact. Mr. MUELLER. That is actually the fact. Now, we should be very careful in incorporat- ing new principles in the organic law. I am not in favor of trying experiments in this Consti- tution that we are framing. If adopted by the people, it may stand twenty or thirty years. This power given to one man, to override the decision of a majority, or even two-thirds of the Representatives of this State, is a very im- portant one. If it is desired to be experiment- ed on, it should be done by law, and not by the Constitution. I know that, on account of the prevailing corruption and evils in our public affairs, we are very much disposed to apply all these trifling remedies. The evil will not be cured by it. If the principle of self-govern- ment is correct, we ought to live up to it, though it may sometimes be a little inconve- nient. Your practice will be right if your theory is correct. The theory, however, of giving one man such a power, real kingly pow- er, to prostrate and neutralize the acts of the people’s Legislature, I think is wholly undem- ocratic, and should find no recognition in the fundamental law of the State. There is one argument made by the gentle- man from Hamilton [Mr. IIoadly]. I think, if intrusting the veto power to the Governor would remedy that evil which he refers to, I would, perhaps, vote for it. The gentleman suggested that our Legislature passes what he [Thursday, calls sumptuary laws. I know they do ; but I have yet to hear of the Governor of any of our States who dared to veto them. The Governor of Wisconsin, the Governor of Indiana, the Governor of Illinois, and others, have sanc- tioned such sumptuary laws, and the Governor will do it here. I advise the gentleman from Hamilton that there is another way to prevent this, and I am willing, at the proper time, to have this way tried. I want the enacting of these sumptuary laws prevented by a proper inhibitory provision in the Bill of Rights. There is the place to provide against it. I would not rely on the Governor of the State to counteract that sort of unauthorized legislation. As far as I am acquainted with the history of the State of Ohio, we always have had excellent and worthy men, as the Governors of this State. But as soon as you intrust them with that power, the veto, you will find that persons of a different character will be put forward by the politicians. Governors then will be elected chiefly with a view to that veto power, and thus, the highest office in the State will be dragged down in the whirlpool of politics and contest- ing interests. The Governor of this State has always been purely an executive officer and should remain so. It has been claimed that much goodwill be derived from this veto power and much bad legislation prevented. I, myself, have seen, during two years, a great many laws passed which ought never to have become laws of this State. But, I doubt that it will be much different if you intrust that power to the Gov- ernor. If there is a majority of a political party in the General Assembly, you will rarely find the Governor belonging to the same politi- cal party, vetoing their measures. So it will, in that respect, as far as political measures are concerned, work no remedy whatever, and nothing will be accomplished by it. The Leg- islatures of New York and Pennsylvania have been corrupted, notwithstanding of, and per- haps because, that power has been in the hands of their Governors. There is another reason, gentlemen, to which I call your attention, and which ought to pre- vent us from incorporating this power into our Constitution, and that is this : We fail to recog- nize that the evils that are complained of, are, to a great extent, to be chargable to the people themselves. We are starting out with the great principle of universal suffrage, giving the right of suffrage to every man, the intelligent and the ignorant, the rich and the poor, and rightly so; but is it not folly to expect, under this universal suffrage regime, everything to move on per- fectly? Why, if correctives are to be applied, do you not go back to the source of all authority, and of all deflections — to the people? The cor- ruption in the National Congress, the corruption in Columbus, or anywhere else, I consider only as symptoms, reflecting the moral deflections of the people themselves ; and the way to cure the evil is to have the attention called to the neces- sity of making the people more intelligent, moral and patriotic, and not be deluded that remedies would lie in these petty measures of vetoes, or checks and bars. As I said, these proposed checks are only patent medicines, which may, perhaps, work beneficially in a special case, but will have no effect in ninety THE VETO POWER. Mueller, Dorsey. 1103 Day.] February 5, 1874.] out of a hundred cases. Let the people of the State of Ohio understand that it is their business to elect good legislators, and that if they send incompetent men, they must bear the conse- quences. You can not take away the responsi- bility from them, and the more reason they have to be dissatisfied with public administration, the more they find out the necessity of partici- pating more diligently in political affairs. A great portion* even of the best of our citizens do not pay any attention to political affairs, at all, leaving it to “rings,” and inferior classes of patriots, to carry on our political affairs. I want our people to understand that if they, themselves, cease to be virtuous, patriotic and honest, they cannot expect that their Governors, their legislators, and other officers, will be other- wise. They will reflect, more or less, their own virtues, and their own vices. As there have been such able and forcible ar- guments made on both sides of this question, it would be carrying water to the ocean, if I should try to add anything to what I have said. Mr. DORSEY. Although this question has been pretty thoroughly discussed, I wish to make an argument on the side of this much abused veto power ; but, as the time for recess is about here, I move, for the present, that the Convention take a recess. The motion was agreed to ; and the Conven- tion (at 12:20 p. m.) took a recess. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 2:30 p. m. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] is entitled to the floor. Mr. DORSET. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention : I am aware that this sub- ject of the veto power, embraced in the eigh- teenth section of the Report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, has been very thoroughly discussed already, and I have no doubt that the Convention is anxious to come to a vote on the question ; but, holding that it is one of those important questions which it becomes this Convention carefully to consider, I trust that I shall have the indulgence of the Conven- tion while I offer a few remarks in behalf of incorporating this veto power in the Constitu- tion of the State. I know that it will be said that we have passed through three-fourths of a century successfully without any provision of this kind in our Constitution. But the same may be said of many other matters of import- ance; and I hold it to be no argument at all against the insertion of any provision of this kind, that two preceding Conventions have failed to incorporate such a provision in the Constitu- tion of the State. If we can find good and suf- ficient reason for introducing it at the present day, that is sufficient, without looking back to see what has been done in times past. And I do hold that we are able to bring before the minds of the Convention, and before the minds of the people of the State, reasons sufficient to indicate why we should insert a provision of this kind in the organic law. It has been said, by a very able writer on civil government, that a just division of power is absolutely necessary to insure success in any form of government. I hold this to be a great and important truth, and in looking over the Constitution of the State of Ohio, it does appear to me that here we find one of the defects which is incorporated into this Constitution of ours. There is not that just division of power between the executive, the legislative and the judicial de- partments of the government which ought to ex- ist in a well regulated system. This, it seems to me, will be obvious to any one who has examined our present Constitution. The judicial depart- ment has, to a very considerable extent, control over the action of the legislative department, for they can review their enactments, and should they be found inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, they declare them null and void. The legislative department has the power to re- strain the executive action, but what power has the executive of the State ? After laws have been passed by the two Houses of the General As- sembly, they are submitted to him, and he sim- ply performs the clerical duty of affixing his name, in order to render them efficient in their action throughout the State. This ought not so to be. There should be, in order to a proper distribution of power, in the executive depart- ment of the government, at least some power enabling him to exercise some degree of influ- ence over the legislative department of the State. The Governor is, no less than every member of the General Assembly, the Represen- tative of the people of the State. He does not represent any particular locality in the State ; but he does represent the whole people, in their collective capacity. He, just as well as the members of the General Assembly, is re- sponsible and amenable to public opinion for the manner in which he performs the duties of his office. He receives the plaudits or he receives the condemnation of the peo- ple when the term of his office expires, if he be presented for re-election before the voters of the State, and yet held, as he is, to a very great extent, responsible for the acts that may be performed during his term of office, liable to be sustained, or liable to fall, with the men of his party who are in power, and who give tone and mark to the acts of the government during his office. He occupies the executive chair, perfectly powerless for giving any efficiency to the acts of the Legislature, or imposing on them any restraint. I desire, Mr. President, to state some of the beneficial effects which, in my opinion, can grow out of the use of the veto power by the Executive of the State. It is only in this way that we can make an argument in favor of the exercise of this power. If we are unable to show any good use which may result from its exercise, then it ought not to be incorporated into the organic law of the State. But if we can show that this power can be used and ex- ercised for the benefit of the people, or that it may produce important results to the people of the State, that is sufficient for us. Whether the people have asked us, or whether they have not asked us, to incorporate such a provision into the Constitution, it matters not. Very little was said by the electors of the State while proceeding to call this Convention, with regard to the special matters which were to be acted upon by the Convention. Lawyers, 1104 [106th THE VETO POWER. Dorsey, Powell. perhaps, talked of the necessity of amending the Judicial Article of the Constitution; but I have failed to hear many of the people of the State demand any great and important reforms; and yet, if there are great and im- portant reforms needed, I submit to this Con- vention, if we would not he derelict to that duty imposed upon us by our constituents, if we failed to incorporate them in the organic law. I say that, in my opinion, this power would be beneficial in preventing hasty legisla- tion, in preventing unconstitutional legislation, and even in preventing party legislation. It is precisely those three points which were desig- nated by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], this morning, in his remarks, in which he en- deavored to show to this Convention that the veto power would have no beneficial effect; and I say to my friend, that I hope to demon- strate that it is just precisely in that way that the Executive veto may be usefully and benefi- cially exercised in behalf of the people. It may prevent unconstitutional legislation. It may prevent partisan legislation, and it may, and will, prevent hasty and inconsiderate leg- islation in the State. We are told that the mere veto of the Gover- nor, or the refusal of the Governor, to ap- pend his signature to a law and allow it to become an enactment of the State, unless two- thirds of the members elected to the General Assembly shall concur in the passage of that law, does not render the law unconstitutional, or does not prevent its enactment even if it be unconstitutional, provided two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly concur in passing it. That is true, but remember this, that if the Governor has the power by his veto to prevent a law being passed, save with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to the General Assembly, he will very often prevent the passage of a law which other- wise might be enacted by a majority, and may very often, in this way, prevent the enactment of an unconstitutional law ; and it is not enough to tell me that the proper place for that matter to be determined is in the Judiciary of the State. I am perfectly well aware of that fact, and I am perfectly aware of the fact that if you wait until the Judiciary of the State determine whether a law be or be not unconstitutional, you may wait until great evils have grown up under the law. Mr. POWELL. No question can be brought up until there is some question between two individuals. Mr. DORSEY. As a matter of course, it re- quires action under the law before a question can be brought up before the Judiciary of the State. It requires that an issue should be made up before it can be known and properly adjudi- cated by the Judicial Department of the government, and determined by them whether the law is constitutional or whether it is not so. I ask any gentleman to remember that only a short time ago, by the action of the legislative power of the State, a law was passed which al- most every man in the State considered to be unconstitutional. I refer to the celebrated Boe- j sel law. Action went on under that law Six millions of bonds for the purpose of mak- I ing internal improvements were issued by the [ [Thursday, various counties in the State. In some cases, those bonds were even thrown upon the market, and so fell into the hands of innocent holders. Finally, the law was decided to be unconstitu- tional. Now, I cannot say, nor can any mem- ber of this Convention say, that had the Gov- ernor of the State possessed the veto power, he could, or would have used it, for preventing the enactment of that law ; but, at least, I say, that it would have been a safeguard which could have been placed between the Legislature and the people ; and might have been beneficially used to prevent the enactment of an unconsti- tutional law. It is not enough to say that we do not know whether the veto power would have been exercised or not, even if the Govern- or did possess it. It is not enough for gentle- men to say that even where that power has been vested, it has not always been used as it should be. It is for us to determine whether in the possession of that power, a beneficial use can be made of it ; and if that can be done, it is right, it is just and it is proper, that we give that power to the Governor, and allow him to exercise it when, in his opinion, it can be done for the best interests of the people. But with regard to partisan legislation, we have been told that it is utterly powerless. Nay, the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], said that this expression was not sufficiently strong, that he was unable to use any word sufficiently strong to convey his idea of the ut- ter inability of any thing like the veto power to arrest the legislation of a partisan character. Now, with all the respect I have for the judg- ment of the gentleman, and I want to say here, in his absence, that I appreciate the excellence of his judgment and his intelligence, and am second to no gentleman in my respect for any thing that may fall from his lips, still I confess that I think I can see just precisely how, under many circumstances, partisan legislation can be arrested by the exercise of this veto power. I think that cases may arise, time and again, in the General Assembly of the State, where a party, being dominant and strongly in the as- cendency, would take upon itself, in the Gener- al Assembly, as one branch of the authority of the State, to pass certain acts, put them before the people, and place them upon the statute books of the State, if they did not know that there was a co-ordinate branch of authority, even if that branch held the same partisan opin- ions as themselves, which had the power to place a veto, at least a qualified veto, upon their partisan action. It is not very often that you will find two co- ordinate branches of the authority of the State, however strongly they may be tinctured with partisanship, that will coolly and deliberately enter into the performance of an act, which can be shown to be wrong or improper so far as the interests of the State are concerned. One branch of the authority of the State may do it where there is no restraining power in anoth- er co-ordinate branch. But if they feel that two important branches of the authority which they hold in the State must shoulder the re- sponsibility of performing this act, before it can be spread upon the statute books of the State, they will hesitate before they will ven- ture to enact any piece of partisan legislation THE VETO POWER. Dorsey, Gurley, West, Hoadly. 1105 Day.] February 5 , 1874 .] which may he shown, in time to come, to he against the best interests of the State. Now, I can imagine, very easily, that just precisely in this way, it has a very important bearing upon partisan legislation in the State. I have no doubt that there have been apportionment bills, dividing the State into districts for electing members of Congress, passed by one or another of these parties of the State of Ohio, placed upon the statute books and become a part of the law of the State for ten years, where the grossest injustice was done to the electors of the State, which the General Assembly would have hesi- tated to do ; nay, which they would have re- fused to do, if they had known that an Execu- tive veto, even of a man of their own party, could be placed upon that law, and would be placed upon it, rather than that the party should be saddled with the responsibility of enacting such a measure. Mr. GURLEY. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. DORSEY. Certainly. Mr. GURLEY. I ask him, as a matter of fact, knowing he is a man of information and knowledge, if we have any more partisan legis- lation in Ohio, than there is in any other West- ern State, where the Governor possesses this veto power? Mr. DORSEY. I cannot answer the question. I am not entirely familiar with the legislation of the Western States of this Union. It is enough for me to know that we have had parti- san legislation in the State of Ohio, which did need a curb, and I am willing to apply that curb, when I can apply it in a particular case. Mr. GURLEY. I ask the gentleman if he has ever known the veto power to check parti- san legislation in any State? Mr. DORSEY. I shall merely state how it might be done. It is not absolutely necessary that we point to facts. It is not necessary, I say, to do this, althongh ihave very little doubt if we were perfectly familiar with all the legis- lative enactments in all of the various States where this veto power exists that we could point the gentleman once and again to some particular enactments where the restraining power of the veto has been useful. But it is enough for me to know, and it is enough for me to say, that I can, as I have already done, lay before this Convention, a case where the exer- cise of the veto power could have been properly applied and where it could have been useful in restraining partisan legislation. But, I go further, and I come to the point which the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] touched upon, that we could not restrain hasty legislation in this way. Now, if the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] had simply said that it could not always be applied in restraining hasty legislation, I would have agreed with his remarks ; but I cannot agree with the correct- ness of his remarks when he says it would have no power or would be likely to have no power in restraining hasty legislation in this State. It seems to me a very sin- gular argument to come from a gentleman so well informed, and who is usually so candid in his remarks, to say that, if a subject has been well and thoroughly considered, that then, as a matter of course, the executive veto has no y.n-72 power, has no efficiency. I think that was the remark of the gentleman. I do not wish to misrepresent him, and he will correct me if I have improperly stated his remarks. Mr. WEST. I think I stated, clearly, this to be the point: if haste in legislation was the ground and reason, if the enactment of a meas- ure had been deliberate and careful, then there could be no ground for the veto in that case. I said if that was the only ground. Mr. DORSEY. The Governor, the executive officer of the State, is, in his executive capacity, to be the judge of that matter. As the Repre- sentative of the people of the whole State, he is to judge for the people of the whole State. He is to stand up and say that a matter has not been maturely considered in the General Assem- bly of the State. Will it be said, because a certain amount of time has been used in its consideration, that, therefore, it has been ma- turely considered ? Will it be said, because a bare majority of the members elected to the General Assembly have concurred in its enact- ment, that, therefore, it has been maturely considered ? No gentleman in this Convention will answer in the affirmative, either to one or the other of those propositions. It does not follow that, because day after day has been consumed in the consideration of any proposi- tion, or because a majority of all the members elected have united in agreeing to a certain proposition in the General Assembly, that, therefore, the matter has received all the ma- ture and careful consideration of which it is worthy, and that, therefore, it ought to receive the executive approval. Not by any means. For what purpose do we claim the necessity of the executive approval? That when it is used the matter may be again brought before the minds of the members of the General As- sembly, and that all of the arguments made in favor and against a certain proposition may be carefully considered — reconsidered, if you please — carefully weighed, carefully adjudicated, and then, if not only a majority, but two-thirds — for I confess that is the way in which I would be anxious to see the veto put into the Consti- tution of the State — if two-thirds of the mem- bers elected to the General Assembly are in favor of the passage of the law, it shall become a law, and the Governor shall affix his signa- ture thereto. That I consider to be carefully considered, well weighed and well matured legislation. Mr. WEST. Why not require, in the Consti- tution, in the first instance, that no bill should become a law if it should not receive two-thirds ? Mr. DORSEY. Because I do not consider it absolutely necessary so to do. Mr. HOADLY. The Governor may agree with the Legislature. Mr. DORSEY. The Governor may agree with the Legislature; but not only so. There are hundreds of unimportant measures which come up before the (General Assembly which only require the concurrence of a majority. Mr. WEST. The point I make is this: If it requires two-thirds to vote, on mature consid- eration, why not put it in the Constitution, so that you have the fact before you all the time? Mr. DORSEY. Ah ! That is precisely, what we do. That is precisely what we propose to 1106 THE VETO POWER. Dorse y, West, Powell. [106th [Thursday, do; that where we wish to have a vote mature, i and well considered ; where we wish to say to £ the people of the State, this matter has been t well and duly considered, and although the ] Governor, as your Representative, does not i concur with us, yet we have taken that careful, 1 well weighed and considerate view of the mat- i ter which enables us to bring two-thirds of all ] the members elected to the General Assembly to concur with us. 3 Mr. WEST. I understand the gentleman is j in favor of requiring that no hill shall become 1 a law until it receives two-thirds. I Mr. DORSEY. I am not. As I said before, there might be many cases that do not require ( a two-thirds vote. Mr. WEST. If no bill were regarded or , could be regarded as maturely considered, un- less it received two-thirds, why not put it in the Constitution and require it in all cases ? Mr. DORSEY. That is exactly the point of difference between the gentleman and myself. I do not say that a bill could not be maturely considered, unless by a vote of two-thirds, but I say that the fact that two-thirds did concur in the passage of a bill, was, so far as it is an al- ternative matter, a very good reason for be- lieving that it had had a mature and well weighed consideration. That is all. I do not say that there are not many cases brought be- fore the Legislature where it is not necessary that the Governor should interpose his objec- tion and force the bill to be passed by a two- thirds majority. It is not always that you can get, on many important matters, two-thirds. We know very often that the House is thin. There may not be a large number of members in attendance, and it may sometimes be very difficult to get two-thirds to concur in the pas- sage of an unimportant measure. Mr. POWELL. And nobody might re- quire it. Mr. DORSEY. But whenever there is a great and important measure before the people of the State, when from every locality of the State the people demand that their Representa- tives be in their places, and that they give that due consideration to that important measure which, as Representatives of the people, is de- manded of them, then you will find that they will be on the ground, and if it be necessary that two-thirds be brought to support the meas- ure, and if it be so palpably right that two- thirds can be secured, my word for it, that in spite of the veto of the Governor, this two- thirds will be found supporting the measure. It has been said that we may lose much more than we gain by this matter ; that it is an un- tried experiment ; that we have gone on very well for three-quarters of a century without it, and now we propose to insert this in the organ- ic law of the State, and do not know precisely the result that may arise from it. We have been told by the gentleman from Portage [Mr. Horton], that we ought not to divide the re- sponsibility with any other department of gov- ernment. He would hold the General Assembly responsible for the laws which they enact before the people of the State. I agree with the gen- tleman entirely." I would hold the General As- sembly responsible, and I would desire that they should feel that responsibility ; but allow me to say, gentlemen of the Convention, that in giving the Governor the veto power, and in thus making him a part of the responsible power in the legislation of the State, you will not be guilty of that kind of division which weakens the responsibility. So far from that, you strengthen the responsibility before the peo- ple of the State. ' I am not one of those who deprecate the ex- istence of parties in the State of Ohio, or in any State, or in the general government. I believe that parties are great and useful interests in the State, and in the general government. Even if I do not believe so, and if no gentleman in the Constitutional Convention is of that belief, still the fact would exist that there are parties in the Government. There always have been parties, and there always will be parties in the Govern- ment. As a general rule, parties are in power at the same time in the General Assembly and in the Executive Department of the State. But it is not always so. Sometimes parties are di- vided. We sometimes have an Executive of one party, and a majority in the General Assembly of the other party ; but, as a general rule here in Ohio, we find that the Executive is put into office by the same party which has a majority in the Legislature of the State. Will any gen- tleman tell me that, by placing a part of the re- sponsibility of the act upon the shoulders of the Executive, as well as upon the General As- bly, that you divide or weaken the responsibil- ity? Not a bit of it. They are both responsible to the people. They are both the Representa- tives of their party in the State, and for their acts they know full well that, before the people of the State, their party will be held responsi- ble, and for that very reason, instead of weak- ening the responsibility by giving it to to both the Executive and Legislative Department in the Government, you strengthen the responsi- bility, and make it two-fold weightier than it was before. You make those men feel that, in their Executive capacity, as well as in their Legislative capacity, they are doing acts for which their party will be held responsible be- fore the people ; and they move slowly and cau- tiously, and with carefully considered steps, when they perform any act which is to be sub- mitted to the test of the popular voice. But, I say again, that, not only is the respon- sibility increased and strengthened, but the rights of the people are strengthened by this double responsibility. This, to my mind, is a great argument in favor of the veto power. It is, with me, one which has far more weight than any other, in my support of this eighteenth section of the Legislative Article. The General Assembly represents the local interests of the people of the State. Every county, in the Lower House — every Senatorial district, in the Upper House, sends into this Assembly their Representatives, who care for the local interests, the local wants, and the local demands, of their constituents. The Governor — the executive offi- cer of the State — is the Representative of the general interests of the State, uninfluenced by any local question, whatever. Let gentlemen remember that these two great interests, the local interests, and the general interests, of the people of the State, are here connected, and never can be antagonistic. Duly and properly Day.] THE VETO POWER. February 5 , 1874 .] Dorsey, Horton, Humphreville, Hoadly, West. 1107 considered, they are one and the same. They stand upon the same footing, upheld by the same force, and require the same legislation. But do they always get it in the State of Ohio ? Do they always get it in any State? I appre- hend not. We all of us know full well how local legislation is, by necessity, made to bear, first, upon one portion of the State, and, then, upon another, brought in antagonism with the general interests of the State. This never ought to be; and, if we can introduce anything into the organic law which will prevent this antag- onism, it is our duty to do it, and we will be subserving the best interests of the people of the State by so doing. There was a great deal of truth in the re- mark made this morning — or, perhaps, I should say, in the admission made — by the gentle- man from Cuyahoga [Mr. Mueller], who was asked by some gentleman of the Convention, if it were not true that local bills, as a general rule, got almost a unanimous vote in the Gen- eral Assembly. He said it was apt to be so. He, perhaps, said it was unanimous. If so, it was only stronger. He has had an opportunity of observing that matter, as much as any gen- tleman in the Convention, and his experience was that local measures in the State, very fre- quently, get almost a unanimous support in the General Assembly. Mr. HORTON. Then what good would your veto do ? Mr. DORSEY. What good would your veto do ? At least, it would cause the matter to be considered; and if it was unanimous, as a mat- ter of course, the veto would do no good. But I wish to say, it shows us, precisely, how these local measures may be made antagonistic to the general interests of the State ; and if we can throw anything into the Constitution which will prevent that from being done, we ought to do it. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Sometimes they are passed without consideration. Mr. DORSEY. We do not want them passed without consideration. We want this veto to force mature and careful consideration on any matter. I say it is a very important item, in the consideration of this question, the admis- sion which was made by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Mueller], that local measures were often passed almost unanimously. Mr. HOADLY. I would ask the delegate from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] this question: whether it has not happened, in the last two years, that in the case of Dr. John M. Best, claiming for damages of property, at Paducah, the Congress of the United States, without re- flection, adopted a principle which would have given away millions upon millions of dollars, which was arrested in consequence of the veto of President Grant? Mr. DORSEY. I remember, very well, the matter to which the gentleman refers, and I know, also, that there are a set of claims which are being persistently urged before the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, the Morgan raid claims, upon which men are trying to pro- duce the same state of affairs. They are trying to get up an interest, first in one part of the State, and then in another part of the State, for the purpose of getting a. majority of the mem- bers of the Legislature elected to favor those claims. Now, I say that, if we have the veto of the Governor, we have a safeguard against the consideration and admission of improper claims of this kind. Mr. WEST. Does not the gentleman know that no such claim can be paid except by a two- thirds vote? Mr. DORSEY. I believe that is true. Mr. WEST. Then what good would the veto do? Mr. DORSEY. I did not, for the moment, remember that fact; but, after all, it is only an additional argument for a provision in the Con- stitution making a two-thirds majority neces- sary in a large class of doubtful and important cases. Mr. HOADLY. I want to suggest to the delegate that, even if that is true, the amend- ment of the delegate from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell] sends the matter back for a reconsidera- tion. Mr. WEST. How much better is that? Mr. HOADLY. How much worse is it? Mr. DORSEY. I was coming to that point; and I was going to say that, instead of that be- ing an argument against the Executive veto, it is a strong argument in favor of it; that we absolutely find it necessary to put this two- thirds requisition into the Constitution, with regard to a certain number of laws, and de- clare that they shall not be passed except by a two-thirds majority. I want to call the attention of gentlemen to one fact, that you never can make a good point out of special legislation, in the Constitution. You never can take all of the cases which should require a two-thirds vote, and place them in the Constitution of the State. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], has called my attention, very properly, to the fact that these Morgan raid claims, as they are called, cannot be paid without a two-thirds vote, and no claims of that character can be paid without a two-thirds vote. That is true. But I say it is totally impossible for us, in framing an organic law to determine all of the different classes of cases that ought to be brought under the two- thirds rule. Gentlemen know that just as well* as I do. They know perfectly well that it is perfectly impossible for us, in making an or- ganic law, to include all the cases that would require a two-thirds vote, whenever they should become proper subjects of enactment before the people. What then should we do? Let us make a general provision that the Governor shall have an executive veto, and that he shall have power, whenever a class of cases arises, or whenever a single case arises, where he deems it right and proper that two-thirds should be demanded for the passage of a bill, to enforce that two-thirds majority; and that he shall have power so to interpose his executive veto, that it will be impossible for a bill to go through without the two-thirds required by the Consti- tution. That is one safeguard for the protec- tion of the people. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman al- low me? Mr. DORSEY. Certainly. Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman is arguing in favor of the two-thirds vote. The sugges- 1108 THE VETO POWER. [106th Campbell, Dorsey, West. [Thursday, tion I wish to make to him is this : whether, for practicable purposes, it would not be better to give the Governor, by a constitutional pro- vision, the power directly to cast this vote. The difference in the House of Representatives be- tween a two-thirds vote of seventy, and a bare majority, which is fifty-three, is seventeen. In the Senate, the difference between a majority and a two-thirds vote, is six, making, in all, twenty-three votes. But a doubt has been stated, and with good force, as to the propriety and economy of these twenty -three votes, which would be the affirmative power the gen- tleman proposes that the Governor should be clothed with. The per diem of these twenty- three would amount, in ordinary sessions of the Legislature, which is about four months, to something like fourteen thousand dollars ; and as the veto which he proposes is practically to clothe the Governor, affirmatively, with the power of these votes, why not at once say in the Constitution, we shall give to the Governor the power to go into the House of Representa- tives upon every bill, and cast seventeen votes, and then go into the Senate and cast six. I would like to know why, for practicable pur- poses, it is not better to give him this power ? Mr. DORSEY. I think it not at all difficult to answer the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell.] We do not intend to revolutionize this government. We do not intend to give the Governor power to vote for seventeen Repre- sentatives in the General Assembly of the State. Mr. CAMPBELL. Does he not do it when he vetoes ? Is not that the practical effect ? Mr. DORSEY. No, sir. I deny that it is the practical effect, because the Governor does not force those men to vote in that way. He asks them to give this matter due consideration, and presents arguments before them on one side. They have the arguments on the other. It is not true that the practical eftect is the same. Mr. CAMPBELL. When they come to take the second vote, so that this bill shall become a law, the veto to the contrary notwithstanding, does it not then require this additional vote of seventeen Representatives and six Senators ? Mr. DORSEY. As a matter of course, it does. Mr. CAMPBELL. Then why not give him the power, directly, by a Constitutional pro- vision ? Mr. DORSEY. Simply, because we have no right and no authority to do anything of the kind, and would not do it, if we had. We do not propose any revolutionary action of that kind. Mr. WEST. Would not that be carrying out cumulative voting? Mr. DORSEY. I am not making a speech in favor of cumulative voting, or anything of that kind, at the present time. Whenever I am asked a question which is germane to the subject un- der consideration, I shall answer it; but I do not propose to answer any questions of that kind. I say this, that it is not the same, and does not have even the same practical effect in the legislation of the State, as if the Governor had the power to cast a certain number of votes. It is true, that the Governor can require, before the law shall be efficient on the statute book, and before a bill can become a part of the law of the State, that seventeen, or a certain number of votes be cast ; but these votes must be cast by the free act of the Representatives who cast them. It is very different from the Governor casting them himself. There is no necessary relation between the two acts, and I hold that it is by no means the proper or practical ques- tion in the case. I desire, gentlemen of the Convention, to go back for a moment, to the proposition which I was arguing, when I was interrupted by the questions which have been put to me. I said, that the very fact that it was required that cer- tain measures be passed in the General As- sembly by a two-thirds vote, was the strongest possible reason, or one of the strongest reasons for giving this veto to the Governor. I said that it was totally impossible for us to make provisions for all the cases in which that two- thirds majority ought to be required, and, there- fore, that it was right and proper that we should make a general provision for the requirement of this two-thirds, when, in the opinion of a co- ordinate branch of the authority of the State, it was deemed right and proper so to do. If the General Assembly could stand before the peo- ple of the State of’ Ohio, and declare that, in all cases whatever, the Constitution only requires that there shall be a majority of the members elected for the purpose of passing any bill and causing it to become a law, and that your Con- stitution did not consider it a matter of any importance to require in any case a two-thirds majority, then we would have much less reason to argue in favor of an executive veto. The two-thirds majority is required in many cases at the present time. But when the Constitution has recognized the fact that there is a large class of cases — an important class of cases — in which it is absolutely necessary that there should be a two-thirds majority, then it becomes patent to every man that it will be far better instead of endeavoring to specify the particular cases in which that two-thirds majority should be re- quired, to give some general power to the executive to let him call the attention of the Legislature of the State to those bills, where it is right, where it is proper, that two-thirds should be required. That is what we say. Let me refer for a moment to the effect which this would have upon the over weening power of corporations growing up in the State of Ohio. I know a great deal is said daily, about the growing and increasing power of corporate authority in the State — a great deal has been said upon that subject in the Convention — and the difficulty with which we can act upon the General Assembly of the State with regard to these corporations. Whether this be true, or not, I shall not say, I am not going to stand up to-day and take either one side or the other of this matter; but I appeal to gentlemen if this be not true, that where a corporation — for ex- ample, a railroad — is passing through a State, and requires certain provisions, as a matter of course, the members representing in the Gene- ral Assembly those portions of the State through which the corporation passes, will be, as a general rule, in favor of supporting the de- mands and requirements of the corporation. What is the ordinary action ? They go to their friends in different portions of the State, who. THE VETO POWER. Dorsey, Hoadly. 1109 Day.] February 5,1874.] perhaps, have also some local measure, and they ask their assistance in carrying through their measure, with the promise that they will give like assistance when the measure in which these others may be interested comes up. In this way, a majority is frequently secured for some measure of local interest to the people, and which may be, and very frequently is, antago- nistic to the general interests of the State. The Executive veto would be useful for the purpose of arresting the judgment and action of the Legislature, unless two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly would concur in the action required by the Representatives of cer- tain localities, which think they may be inter- ested in carrying forward certain measures and supporting the demands of certain corporations in the State. I am told that it is much easier to secure the concurrence of the Executive than it is to se- cure the concurrence of a majority of the legis- lative authority ; that it is easier to bribe the Executive than it is to bribe a majority of the Legislature. Well, gentlemen, that may be true. I do not presume or expect to stand here to make provision against all moral evils that may creep into the legislation of the country. We cannot do it. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate allow me a question ? Mr. DORSEY. Certainly. Mr. HOADLY. I would ask whether there has been a cheaper method referred to than that which has been charged in this body, a charge which has been sustained by a majority of tbe votes of this Convention ? I refer to that which has been universally, successfully exercised up- on the General Assembly ; namely : Railroad Passes. Mr. DORSEY. I am aware that a good deal has been said upon that subject, but I did not think it necessary even to refer to it ; but I do say I have sufficient confidence in the Execu- tive, as I have sufficient confidence in the legislative authority of the State of Ohio. I have sufficient confidence in their purity, to be- lieve that they are not to be influenced by bribery. I had much rather believe that gen- tlemen would argue themselves into the belief of the necessity and propriety of according cer- tain gifts and certain privileges to a corporation which would benefit their particular locality, and that they were endeavoring to get other gentlemen in different localities of the State to assist them in getting those privileges, when they honestly believed that those privileges they created were not contrary to the best in- terests of the State, than to believe that gentle- men could be swayed by a bribe, or that the ex- ecutive authority of the State could be bought or corrupted by corporations which desired cer- tain privileges in the State. But it is right, and certainly proper, to say, that if we are to provide against the corrupting influence of cor- porations, let us, at least, have the two co-ordi- nate branches of the authority of the State, the executive and the legislative branches, both of them, to be thoroughly convinced of the utility and propriety of granting certain privileges, be- fore they can be granted by the enacting author- ities of the State. That, certainly, is right. That, * certainly, is vindicating and guarding the rights of the people. But I go farther with regard to this matter, and I would not consume the time of this Con- vention if I did not believe that in sustaining this provision, I was sustaining a principle in which the people of Ohio have an abiding inter- est; and I do think, Mr. President, and gentle- men of the Convention, that if we cannot insert this veto proper, I am willing to take even the veto provided by the substitute of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell], if 1 can do no better, although I hardly think it amounts to a veto. I think it can hardly be honored with the name of a veto. It is a mere act of restric- tion ; but I would be willing to take that if I could not get one any better. I remember very well, that in the Convention of 1850 and 1851, a proposition very similar to that of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell], was intro- duced by the venerable gentleman from Clarke (Mr. Mason). I supported the proposition, which would amount to nothing more than a restriction. I do not know that, in the twenty- three years that have elapsed since that time, I have grown wiser, but I do say to-day, from the experience that I have had, trom what I have seen of the Legislature of the State, I am will- ing to go a step further in the matter than I was in 1850 and 1851; and while at that time I was only willing to vote for the restriction proposed by the proposition of the gentleman from Clarke (Mr. Mason), I am willing, to- day, to vote for a two-thirds veto, if I can get it. If I cannot get a two-thirds veto, then I am willing to vote for a three-fifths veto. If I cannot get a tbree-fifths veto, I then am willing to vote for a mere restriction : but I would cer- tainly like to vote for a provision that goes fur- ther than that. I remember very well that in the Convention of 1850-’51, a proposition was introduced by a delegate from Fairfield, which provided that if a proposition, vetoed by the Governor, could not get two-thirds majority in the House of the General Assembly, after that veto was given, then it should be re-committed to the next House of the General Assembly elected after the question was thrown before the people, and then, if they determined it by a bare majority, it should become a law in spite of the veto of the Governor. There was a great deal of sense in that provision ; and I do not know but I would prefer it to the provision of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], for the purpose of preventing hasty and inconsiderate legislation, and I would be entirely willing to insert some- thing of this kind in the organic law of the State. I do not want gentlemen to tell me, in regard to this, that we are retrograding, that we are going backward in the legislation of the State. I do not want gentlemen to tell me that we are proposing to give the Governor of the State of Ohio a power which the crown of England has not exercised for nearly two hun- dred years. I beg leave to tell gentlemen who use this argument, that the veto, as exercised in this country, is a very different thing from the veto as exercised and held by the crown of England. Why is it, I would ask gentlemen, since the accession of the first House of Hanover, they have had no veto in England ? It was freely 1110 THE VETO POWER. [106th Dorsey, Barnet, Humphreville, West. [Thursday, used by the first that came to the throne in that line; but since the days of William of Orange the executive veto has not been used in Eng- land. Why is it? Simply because the execu- tive veto was used there, for the purpose of supporting the prerogatives of the crown, as against the rights of the people. Since the rev- olution of 1680, we have seen, year by year, de- cade by decade, age by age, the power of the people of England growing in such wise that the Executive of that country dared not use its veto against the interests of the people. But, does the veto power, in this country, grow up ? and is it held as against the interests of the people? Most assuredly not. The executive power which we give to the Governor of the State is exercised by a man who holds his whole power from the people. It is a power given by the people, and for the people, of the State ; and cannot be used, and will not be used, as against the interests of the people. This is answer enough, gentlemen of the Convention, to the declaration that we are going backward — that we are retrograding — in thus giving the veto power to the Governor of the State. Nor is there any more force in the argument, which has been persistently urged, and has been used by every gentleman who has opposed the veto power, that we have gotten along well enough for seventy-five years, without this veto, and that the framers of the first Consti- tution, of 1802, and the framers of the Constitu- tion of 1851, refused to insert it in the organic law. As I said, in the very commencement of my remarks, that cannot be any argument against the use of the veto power. I believe — for I was not present yesterday — but, from the remarks that I have seen published in the news- papers of the city, the delegate from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] referred to reasons why, proba- bly, the veto was not put in the first Constitution, and to the manner in which it had been used by the Governor of the Northwestern Territory, which was admitted to be adverse to the views and rights, and the best interests, of the people of the territory. That is, very probably, cor- rect, and I have been asked, to-day, if it was true, that the framers of the Constitution of 1802 refused to put into it the veto power, be- cause it had been used adversely to what they had considered the rights and interests of the people, by the territorial Governor, why is it right to put that veto in to-day, in the year of grace, 1874, and give to the Executive that power that was refused to be given to him in 1802? The answer appears patent to me. I see no difficulty, at all, in it. Mr. BARNET. Can it not be abused now, as well as then ? Mr. DORSEY. It might be abused, but, let me say, it was abused by a man who was not put in power by the people. It was abused by a man who held his power from the Federal Government. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. And he had an ab- solute veto. Mr. DORSEY. I was going to refer to that. He had an absolute veto ; but this is a restricted veto which grows up from the people. It is given by the people, to be exercised for the in- terests of the people. There is all the differ- ence in the world between the two cases. And now, gentlemen of the Convention, I have very little more to say upon the subject. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman explain why it is that there has been no demand for the veto ; and why it is that, during the last twenty- three years, there has never been a proposition in the General Assembly to amend the Consti- tution in that respect ? Mr. DORSEY. I can make the same general answer to that, that I have made time and again, that the people have not asked for all the re- forms that present themselves, and will present themselves before this Convention. We are here as the Representatives of the people of the State. We are to judge what great and im- portant reforms are needed, for the benefit of the people. Mr. WEST That does not answer the point. I allude to the historical reference which was made yesterday, that the people would have put it in, if they had had the opportunity, in 1802. Mr. POWELL. It was not so stated. Mr. DORSEY. I care not whether it was, or was not. I am making my own argument. I did not hear the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] ; consequently, I merely referred in- cidentally to that part of his argument, and I referred to it for the purpose of showing that the veto power, that we are proposing to erect in the State of Ohio, stands on a totally differ- ent basis than the veto power exercised by Gov- ernor St. Clair, and, consequently, an argument against that cannot be an argument against the veto which we propose to insert in the present Constitution. Gentlemen stand up here and tell me that the State of Ohio has grown to greatness, and has gone on, at an ever-increa- sing rate of prosperity, without this veto. I certainly subscribe to everything which the eloquent gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] said, to-day, in that behalf, and I was much pleased to hear his remarks ; but I beg leave to say to the gentleman, that, while he was telling us of the great and increasing prosperity of the State, telling us that, placed as we are, on the gjeat highway between the Pacific and the At- lantic, making the passage way for the trade of the Indies, from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast, and telling us of the great and important benefits that were to grow up within the State from that trade, as a matter of course, I could not help subscribing to every word of it. But I must also ask the gentleman to remember that the history of the world shows that those countries that have been so fortunately placed as to stand upon the highway for that trade, have always grown to great importance, and into great power, and into great wealth ; and, knowing all that, it did seem to me a singular deduction, a singular corollary, to a statement of that kind, that the gentleman should say that during all these years, we did not have the veto power in the Constitution. I say to the gentle- man, that he knows, and I say to the gentlemen of this Convention, that they all know, that, in spite of the many defects of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, the State has still gone on in her course of prosperity, and progress, and wealth. In spite of the defects of your judicial system, in spite of one of the worst tax systems with which any State has ever been burdened, the State has gone on in her road to prosperity 1111 Day .] THE VETO POWER. February 5 , 1874 .] Dorsey, Gurley, Pease, Hitchcock. and greatness ; and will gentlemen tell me, that because we have overcome all these difficulties, because we have gloriously triumphed, by the innate power of a vigorous State, over all these evils and defects in the present Constitution, that, therefore, we ought not to amend it? No, not for a moment, gentlemen. Let us see all the defects that are in the Constitu- tion of the State. Let us recognize them, and, recognizing them, let us make a Constitution which will blot out all these evils, and give to the people of this State just such a Constitution as they have a right to expect at our hands. Mr. GURLEY. I understood the gentleman to say that he was in favor of this two-thirds proposition, for the reason that it increases the safety of the people. Now, I want to have the gentleman inform me, if by conferring upon the Governor a power that is equal to two- thirds of the Legislature, why the safety of the people would not be proportionately in- creased by conferring upon him the absolute power? Mr. DORSEY. All I have to say to the gen- tleman is, that when he wants to cool himself he does not necessarily have to go to the North Pole. We do not have to run into extremes when we want to make reforms. It may be preferred, and I hold it is right, to give the Governor a qualified veto. I do not think it is right to give him an absolute veto. There is reason in all things. I propose to go as far as is right and proper. I do not propose to go to un- necessary and improper extremes. That is all the answer I have tomrxke to the gentleman. Mr. PEASE. Whfin this proposition first came up, I did not design to take up the time of the Convention in making any argument in con- nection with it. I do not know but, perhaps, it would have been just as profitable if we had voted upon the proposition this morning, with the views we then entertained in regard to it. The subject of vetoes is not new, either to this Convention, or to the people whom we have the honor to represent. It is not new to this government. It is one of the early incorpor- ations of that power in the early history of our government, and it is one that has been talked of ever since we have been a people, and have had a government by the people. It has been talked of in connection with this matter of absolute power. Coming as we did from an ancestry across the waters, where absolute powet- was the rule, it was a thing that our fathers would be naturally suspicious of. It was a question that they naturally would approach with a great amount of prejudice, and there worild have to be, necessarily, strong reasons whir they would retain any feature of that ab- solute, one-man power. It, nevertheless, was retrained, and the history of those times will sauisfy any one that it was retained on prin- ciple. It was retained, as has been suggested helre, over and over again, not as a mere figure- head, not as a mere absolutism, but as a needed C jheck, necessary to control the acts of the ma- jority — as a thing necessary to the protection l the people themselves. Gentlemen seem to ave difficulty in understanding why it was that tli us principle was interposed, and this power “ as retained in the manner it was, for the pur- pose of protecting the rights of all the people of the nation and of the State. While very much has, doubtless, been sug- gested during the debate upon this question, that, in view of the time occupied, might well enough have been left unsaid, nevertheless, it is now, as heretofore, proper to recur to first principles. And hence, I feel grateful to my young friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], who has, by his research and industry, presented us with many excellent views which were enter- tained in those early periods, and we are under just as great obligations to our friend from Butler [Mr. Campbell], who has given us the benefit of his large experience in Congress, and the reference he has made to the closing scenes of the Legislature of this State for 1870-71, has, in my judgment, fully demonstrated the neces- sity for such a guard as we now seek to intro- duce into our Constitution. I believe it is always profitable to recur to first principles, and that it is instructive to go back to the Declara- tion of Independence. I believe the Fourth of July to be a glorious institution, and I regret to see that these national periods of rejoicing are not held in as high estimation now, as they were in the early days. We have now other enterprises. We are all after the “almighty dollar,” and we seem to see nothing else. I feel that it is occasionally refreshing to be called back, as I was by the speech of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], to those old land- marks. I think it is always instructive and advisable to note the signals along the great highway of civilization, and notice the mile- stones by which our fathers have traveled on the great road. All these are valuable in their way, and teach an instructive lesson. It seems to be conceded, all over this Hall, that it is a fact that we have hasty legislation. It is conceded that we have illegal legislation ; so that, apparently, there is no difference of opinion about that, and we do not seem to dis- agree on that point of the argument. The simple question is, what shall be the remedy? Mr. HITCHCOCK. I ask the gentleman to define illegal legislation. I understand him to say, that it is conceded that we have illegal legislation. Mr. PEASE. I sympathize with the gentle- man. He is not a lawyer; but, I apprehend there is no lawyer in this Hall, who will seri- ously ask that question. Have we not had illegal legislation ? Of course, I mean by the use of the word illegal, unconstitutional legislation — that, I regard, as illegal legislation. Now, Mr. President, whether the veto power is the remedy, or, whether there is any remedy that will approximate the evil, is, perhaps, a grave question. There seem to be three classes of persons in this Hall, from the manner in which this debate proceeds, and I hardly know in what manner to reconcile all their different views ; and, of course, I shall not expect to do so. But, I find two classes of persons that agree upon one thing, however widely they may be apart in their arguments. One of these classes of persons support the resolution that has been passed by this body, which was introduced by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The other class is represented by a resolution intro- duced by the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. \ 1112 THE VETO POWER. fl06tli Pease, West. [Thursday, Campbell]. Both of these classes are in favor of some veto. One would think it a little surprising that our distinguished friend from Logan [Mr. West], listening to his argument, was in favor of a veto ; but if I understood him, when he closed his elaborate and very able argument, although the whole of it was against the veto power, and although he said he would feel humiliated if he were a member of the Legisla- ture, and an act should be vetoed by the Gov- ernor, still, if he was not in favor of the veto when he started in with his speech, he certainly convinced himself, before he closed, that he was in favor of the veto as presented by the substi- tute offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], and as I understood him, he will vote for that proposition. There is another class of gentlemen, opposed entirely to the exercise of the veto power, and it is to that class that I shall first say a few words. I shalFnot stop to enumerate what, in my judgment, are the benefits resulting from this Veto power ; it would be, substantially, but a re-statement of the arguments which have been very ably presented upon this floor ; and I shall not hazard the chance of weakening those argu- ments by any imperfect manner in which I might present them. I shall adopt the conclu- sions to which these arguments lead, however, as the basis of what I have to say in speaking of the objections which are urged against the veto power. I do not know how numerous the gen- tlemen are who are opposed to the veto power. I have heard it from a few, however, and I con- ceive that they have all the same view of the subject. I have a friend at my right [Mr. Gur- ley] for whom I have the highest regard and respect, who I know is opposed to the veto power. Now, what are the objections that are urged by these gentlemen against this power ? They say it is a dangerous power. I do not know that they have succeeded in demonstrating to anybody that it is a dangerous power. They have enunciated it; but I have yet to listen to the evidence of it. Perhaps I ought to except the instance re- ferred to, of the Territorial Governor of Ohio, in which, it is said, he exercised that power to the injury of the people of the Territory. And so far as that is an argument, I might say, what has already been said, that that veto was not in any regard like the veto we propose to place in this Constitution. It would be as unfair to object to this veto because of the unpopularity of that veto, as it would be to object to the of- fice of President of the United States because in some things he resembles, perhaps, the Kings of Great Britain, or any other monarch in Europe. That veto power was an absolutism. The Territorial Legislature could not pass the act over that veto. The Governor, in that case, was responsible to nobody, unless it might have been, perhaps, the administration that gave him the appointment. In no sense was he re- sponsible to the people. The people had no power to review his acts, and he felt that inde- pendence, and he exercised it in such a man- ner as made the veto power unpopular, at the time the first Constitution of Ohio was adopted. But it seems to me that that instance is not suf- ficient to warrant these gentlemen in saying that it is a dangerous power. I think we can say, without fear of successful contradiction, that it is the only instance to which gentlemen upon this floor can refer, where this power has been improperly exercised. In all the other instances, I say all , because I shall not stop to particularize, where the veto has been exercised, both by the President of the United States, and in all the States, having this power, it has been popularly sustained by the people at home. I say substantially in nearly every other in- stance, and they are numerous, running along through the history of our Government, clear down to the present time, and the people have very uniformly, almost without an exception, sustained the exercise of the power. I think that is an answer to this bugbear of this territorial Governor’s improper exercise of this power. Mr. WEST. What gentleman upon this floor, opposing the veto, has ever alluded to Governor St. Clair, during his abusive exercise of the power, as a reason why it should not be incorporated here? Was not Governor St. Clair’s name first introduced, and has it not been employed by the friends of the veto here all the time, and not by those opposed to it? Mr. PEASE. With proper deference to the gentleman, I think not. Of course, he is cor- rect, in so far as to its being presented by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly]. In making his opening argument, in referring to the history of the veto power, he read from Judge Burnet’s History of Ohio, and that is the only way it has been referred to here, by the friends of the veto, and I have heard it fre- quently from two or three gentlemen upon the other side, who have urged that as an argument against it, just as I have stated it. I think I am not mistaken about it. Mr. WEST. Those statements must have been made outside of the discussion, for they have not been heard in this part of the Hall. Mr. PEASE. Does the gentleman insist that I am unfair in stating their argument? It seems to me no gentleman can take exception to the manner in which I have presented it. At any rate, it does not drive me from the ar- gument I propose to submit. Refer me to any other instance where it has been used by any State or United States authority where the people have not, substantially, sustained the veto. But it is said that, if it is not a dangerous power, it is a novel power. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], in his flight of imagination and brilliancy, which, with its force, might carry away, as by a strong wave, those who did not carefully and logically look into it, says it is a novel power, if I understand him rightly. Mr. WEST. In Ohio. Mr. PEASE. In Ohio? I did not understand that it was limited to Ohio. But if it is good anywhere it will be good in Ohio, but if it is bad it would very likely be crossed out some- where, and it would not be necessary for us to try it in Ohio to demonstrate that it is a bad principle and a bad policy. Why, sir, as novel ! as it seems to be, it has been established by the irovernment of the United States from its or- Day.] February 5, 1874.] THE VETO POWER- PEASKj GURLEY. 1113 ganization. We had the principle in starting out with our original thirteen States. It is possible that but one or two of those States engrafted upon their Constitutions the veto power. I wish to say, however, in answer to any such argument, that to-day, if I remember rightly, only eight States of this Union are without the veto power, and one of them is the State of Ohio. All the other States have re- garded it as a conservative and wholesome power, and such has been the expedience of the Federal Government. I refer the gentleman to the fact that in all the States where they have had Conventions for the purpose of reor- ganizing the organic law, in none of them have they dropped out of their new Constitutions the veto power. They all retain it, after hav- ing tried it for years. When they come to re- model the organic law, they reinstate that power, which is called here a bad element in our organic law. The argument, in my judg- ment, Mr. President, is unfounded. It is without support in fact. It is a fear without the foundation of a single reason for that fear. Gentlemen say this is taking away from the people the power of self-government. Now, perhaps, at a first blush, and without any fur- ther examination, it might have that appear- ance. Figures have been given here, by the distinguished gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], endeavoring to show that the Gov- ernor would have, in effect, the power to cast, in one case, seventeen votes, and in another, six, and says this is giving him a power that is su- perior to that of the Representatives. The ar- gument does not so impress me, with all defer- ence to the conclusion of the gentleman. It is no new element that we seek to create here. What is a Constitution but a veto power? In all the people resides sovereignty ; but all the people have consented to send these delegates here, as they did in 1850, and they have said, we authorize you to place restraint upon our power. We authorize you to prescribe the boundaries of our power. We ask you to do it by means of a written Constitution. We ask you to put a limit and restraint upon certain things that we shall not do, and permit certain things which we may do. In that lies the very essence of a veto. It is the Constitution of Ohio to-day as adopted in 1851. That great veto was adopted, also, in 1802, when the people assem- bled together through their honored Represent- atives, and permitted their liberties to be re- strained in certain directions and for certain purposes. Just so in the Constitution of the United States. I tell you that, in a Democratic Government, in a Republican Government, this principle is necessary to protect the people, to protect the weak against the strong in numbers. Take away these Constitutions, and we are re- mitted to the wager of battle ; the weak against the strong, and the fleet against those who are not so rapid. These are restrained by this power; so that it is not dangerous, it is not novel, and, in my judgment, it is an additional safeguard that this Convention should incorpo- rate as an additional means of securing these rights and liberties. Gentlemen inquire how is it that the people are protected by the veto? I have answered the inquiry just now. They are protected by | this veto power precisely as they are protected by this Constitution, precisely as the people of the Nation are protected by the Constitution of the United States. A Constitution is but a veto in another form. That is the way the people are protected. Some have an idea, that in the Legislature alone resides the power of sovereignty. In the Legislature there is the legislative power, but it is no more sovereign than is the executive. The executive is no more sovereign than is the judicial; the three, are the representation of the sovereignty of the people. Will not the veto power, in the hands of your Governor, in making his opposition to this hasty legislation, to this illegal legislation, pro- tect the people ? But, says the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], the Governor has no right to determ- ine whether the laws are unconstitutional or not. Why, sir, if you will give him the veto power he will have the right to exercise it, and that is the only reason I propose to give it to him. It is conceded, I have said, by eve- ry gentleman who has made an argument upon this question, that illegal — unconstitu- tional, is, perhaps, the better phrase — leg- islation, has found its way into the halls of legislation, and if you clothe the Gover- nor with this power, if you have a Governor who understands his duties, he would have the right to veto it, would he not? Now, is it fair to presume that he would not do it ? Certainly, he cannot do it unless you give him that right. He cannot do it unless you give him the power to do it ; and if you have given him that power, he is responsible to the people for the manner in which he exercises that power. The gentle- man also says that it is the Judicial Department only that can be safely intrusted with these legal rights. That is true, sir ; but I take it, there is a vast difference between the Governor exercising his veto upon the constitutionality of an act before it becomes a law, and the Su- preme Court doing it after it becomes a law. In the first instance, no rights have been ac- quired under the act; in the second, rights have been acquired under it, and it has become a rule of property. When these rights have been acquired, it is well that these questions should go to the highest tribunal of the State ; but I submit, that before it becomes a rule of proper- ty, before it has done its mischief, there should be no earthly reason why the Governor, seeing that, might not pronounce his veto upon it. Mr. GURLEY. Does the gentleman presume that we shall have always elected men to occu- py the Executive Chair who will have the abil- ity and judgment to pass upon the constitu- tional acts of the Legislature? Mr. PEASE. I will answer that by saying, that I believe the people of Ohio will be fortu- nate enough, as long as this is a Government, to elect as good and true men to the position of Governor as they have done from the forma- tion of the State up to the present time. Mr. GURLEY. Then, I will ask another question : If it is not a fact, that in every Leg- islature during the last fifty years, there have been scores of men in either branch thereof, who have been as competent to pass upon Con- stitutional law as the Governor? 1114 THE VETO POWER. Pease. [106th [Thursday, Mr. PEASE. I do not know but that may be so, and I do not know that it is not so. But this I do know, as a general thing, and every- body of any experience knows, that in a leg- islative body, as in every other large body where party interests and selfish motives are involved, the persons composing that body be- come absorbed in a measure, until they have but one idea of that measure, and they lose sight of other ideas and interests ; and in that way, frequently, legislation is carried through, and many excellent men give their consent to it. And it seems to me that a Governor, occu- pying a position away from that body, not be- coming excited in the process of adopting, or interested in bringing forward the measure, coolly looking it over, would be more likely to hit the nail on the head, than the men who have been engaged in the conflict and excite- ment of carrying it through. It seems to me, these objections which have been so urged, can- not be well founded. I would give this power to the Governor for the purpose of enabling him, when any of this improper legislation — if he considered it such — had been passed, to put a stop to it. In my judgment, no harm can be done by such a course, and much evil may be prevented. There are one or two other considerations which I had in my mind, but these interrup- tions occasionally throw me off the track, for the time, and like a locomotive, it may take some time to get me back again and in motion. Another objection has been urged: that we, probably, would be doing more harm, by giving this constitutional power to the Governor, by withdrawing responsibility from the Legisla- ture. If that were true, I would hesitate long before I would consent to the veto power. But the objection does not strike me with force. 1 believe it to be the experience of every body in all their lives, and I can, perhaps, refer to their schooldays as an illustration of the idea I have; and I submit it is an entire answer to the objec- tion that was intimated by the gentleman from Portage [Mr. Horton]. His argument is: if there is any responsibility resting anywhere else, the Legislature will not feel under as high an obligation as they would if they could not shift the responsibility. Is that idea borne out in the experience of any one? Take the school exercises, or your college exercises. Is it a fact in these cases that you have been less careful when you knew that your work was to be ex- amined by a teacher or a professor ? It seems to me that the very idea of review by either Governor or teacher, is a stimulant, an incen- tive, a reason why care would be taken, why they would preceed cautiously in what they are about to do. If the legislators felt that they were responsible to the people only, they might flatter themselves with the idea that they would escape observation. It is, they might say, something in which my people are not interested, in my locality, and, therefore, we shall vote for it, and no attention will be paid to it. It never will be called up, and put under review, and we shall escape the responsibility. It strikes me, that is the way they would reason; whereas, if they know that, whatever the act is, whatever measure they consent to pass, it is to come under review be- fore the Governor of the State, and be approved or rejected by him, and, if rejected, his reasons therefor given in writing, and these objections go broadcast over the State, and every one of their constituents becomes familiar with the ob- jections made by the Governor, they will move cautiously. This is, to my mind, a sound argu- ment in favor of the veto, instead of an argument against it, and is an additional safeguard to se- cure careful and wise legislation. My friend from Portage [Mr. Horton] says he would support it, if it would secure good legis- lation. I have only to say, in reply to that, if we can incorporate, in this Constitution, that which will secure good legislation, we will, in- deed, secure a prize, which we should give to the world. If we could devise any measure, and give it form and expression in a sentence or two, or in the whole Constitution, that will secure, without danger of miscarriage, good legislation : we have got that which the world has been looking for, from the historic period to the present time. We have found what is better than the ancient philosopher’s stone — the means by which we can secure good legislation. I dare not claim for it any such eminence and value as that; but, I say, in my judgment, the veto power, in the hands of the Governor, will tend that way. It is among the few things that poor, erring human nature may grasp, and bring to their aid, in the endeavor to secure good leg- islation, and it may not be in our power to do more than that. Without stopping any longer to make any further observation upon a class of gentlemen who are opposed to any veto power, I want to spend a few moments with the gentlemen who are in favor of the proposition of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. You gen- tlemen of the Convention who believe with me that the veto is a desirable institution, that it is a conservative power, that it is an instru- ment which is not dangerous to be used, and one that may be productive of better legisla- tion and protect the rights of the minority, and cannot damage anybody’s rights; let us in- quire, is the proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] — the simple majority veto — the thing that will do it best? I frankly say, if it is all we can get, I shall support it. I be- lieve it will have its good results. I believe a veto power that has only the effect to make the body vetoed review their acts, and make them halt in their career, even but for a day, and on a simple majority, is better than none. But I have my apprehensions that this limited veto will not do all the good that the veto power should do, or that it may do. I know the pop- ular idea is, the majority should rule. That is regarded as a democratic principle, and for or- dinary purposes and for ordinary and proper legislation, it is what I would always adhere to ; but as a negative power, is a mere majority veto sufficient? Do we accomplish all we de- sire to reach by the simple majority power? Suppose, to illustrate, a bill has been passed by the Legislature through the influence of rings. Suppose a railroad bill has been carried through the Legislature by means of a rail- road ring, and by a mere majority, and is regarded by the Governor as hasty and improper legislation ; or, it may be, that it is re- THE VETO POWER. Pease, West, Cunningham. 1115 Day.] February 5, 1874.] garded by the Governor as unconstitutional leg- islation, and the Governor vetoes the bill when it comes to him. Now, is anybody so verdant as to believe that if a ring has been formed for the purpose of crowding through that legisla- tion, the simple veto of the Governor, when they can re-enact it by a mere majority vote, is going to arrest that class of improper and ille- gitimate legislation? It strikes me that it is not. But, gentlemen say, would that not be the result if the bill should go back to the Legisla- ture with the veto attached, and it should pass by a two-thirds vote? Certainly it would. That is true. I admit the force of the argu- ment that, if the ring is big enough, if they have a two-thirds majority, they can pass their measure in spite of the veto. Then it must go to the people. Then it must go to the courts. But is it as probable, I ask; is it as likely that two-thirds will be secured for that measure, as it is that a mere majority can be secured to pass it? There is another reason why, it seems to me, this majority should be two-thirds to overcome the veto. We have already provided that it shall require a two-thirds vote to carry certain appropriations. Now, suppose the Governor vetoes a bill containing such appropriations. It goes back to the House, and in order to pass, it must then receive its two-thirds majority. It can- not pass by a simple majority, as would seem to be the indication of this proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. If the bill went back — assuming that that proposition will be secured in the Constitution — would there not be danger that an appropriation bill, which required a two-thirds vote to pass it, which had received that two-thirds vote and which had gone to the Governor and been ve- toed by the Governor, and returned by him with his veto, might become a law by a mere majority vote ? I submit, could not such a bill go back to the House, receive a majority vote, and become a law? In my judgment it could. I say, then, there must he something more than a mere majority to overcome the veto. I am not particularly insisting upon the two-thirds ma- jority : perhaps that is too large, and perhaps a smaller number would be sufficient; surely, there ought to be a majority required, larger than a mere majority, to re-pass any measure over the veto. Mr. WEST. I would say to the gentleman from Stark [Mr. Pease] that, so far as appropri- ations are concerned, I do not take issue with the proposed amendment. Mr. PEASE. I hope the amendment will not be needed ; but it evidently would be need- ed, if the substitute of the gentleman from But- ler [Mr. Campbell] should succeed. Mr. WEST. Whilst I am up, permit me to make a correction in regard to another matter. Mr. PEASE. Proceed. Mr. WEST. I am not in favor of any veto : but if we are to have a veto, I do not want to go any further than the proposition of the gen- tleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], with the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] at the foot of it. I insist that that amendment shall be added at all hazards, if there is to be any veto at all. Mr. PEASE. I understood that the gentle- man from Logan [Mr. West] directed the force of his argument against all veto power ; but I also understood him, at the close of his argu- ment, to be in favor of the mild form proposed by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. It would seem to me, however, that this would, substantially, be a failure. It could not in any way prohibit this improper legislation. It might call attention to the question in hand. It might increase the length of time that would have to be devoted to it. But it would seem that it is powerless for any good beyond that ; and in a measure that has resulted in so much good to the different States, and, in my judg- ment, so much good to the United States, I do not believe that it is advisable to attach a condition that will defeat its object. Nearly all the States that have the veto power have adopted the two-thirds rule. Only two or three of them have adopted the majority rule. The great majority of the States that have adopted the veto power have followed the rule w r hich has been adopted by the United States Consti- tution. I do not know that I will be in favor of having this veto presented to both Houses by the Governor ; but that is simply a matter of business form to which I have no serious objection. It seems to me, however, unneces- sary that the veto should be sent to both branches ; and I shall be in favor of having the Governor present his reasons in writing rather than orally. I would have it so because the Governor would then give the matter more formal and considerate attention. He would be more deliberate, and, besides, that would insure its becoming a matter of record, which I deem important, and the merely verbal veto might not get on record. I think it sufficient to send the veto to the House in which the bill originated, and require that House to send it to the other House. I think that would be suffi- cient. I would hardly require the Governor to go through with the performance of appear- ing, either in person or by message, in both branches — but this a mere matter of form, and may be easily corrected. These, Mr. President, are the views I enter- tain as regards the veto power. I regret that I have taken so much of the time of the Con- vention in presenting them, but I did not feel at liberty to let the question go by default, when I know that so many of my constituents are in favor of this measure. It has been sug- gested here that the Convention of 1850 did not see fit to engraft such a provision in the Consti- tution. I have to say, in answer to that, that so far as my observation and experience go, it has been the regret of many of the people in my county that it was omitted in that Constitu- tion; and, although no petitions have been presented here to that effect, I guarantee that gentlemen of the Convention hear among their constituents the inquiry, “Are you not going to adopt this veto power in the Constitution you are framing ? ” I hear that inquiry wherever I go, and I presume that is the experience of other gentlemen of this Convention. I shall, therefore, vote against the substitute of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], and in favor of the proposition to invest a two-thirds veto power in the Governor. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I wish to state, in a 1116 THE VETO POWER. Cunningham, Johnson. few words, and to place on record, the reason that dictates my course in supporting the pro- vision to clothe the Governor with the veto power. The Executive officer alone, of all the political officers of the State Government, represents the people of the State in the aggregate. The General Assembly, supreme throughout the State, is, nevertheless, made up of Representatives of localities, and these localities have, severally, interests which do not appertain to the others, or to the people of the State at large. The combination of va- rious local interests is an old and successful means of procuring legislation, and the result is that, while the general effect is, in many cases, pernicious, the members of the Assem- bly who accomplish it, are answerable only to their local constituents. I would make the Governor a Tribune of the people, and upon his direct responsibility to them, I would have him exercise a negative power in legislation. I would make it the ex- ercise in his hands of a power which never passes from the hands of the people. To make myself understood: There is a power, vested nowhere, either in the Executive, Legislative, or Judiciary Department, but which remains with the people. It is from this source that this Convention derives its existence. It derives none of its prerogatives from the legislative en- actment which called it together, but from the people themselves, independent and outside of legislation. I would take a fraction of that power and charge the Governor with its exer- cise, restrained and controlled, as he will be, by his consciousness of direct, personal ac- countability to the whole people of the State. Mr. JOHNSON. I am opposed to the princi- ple involved in any, or all, propositions for con- ferring the veto power on the Governor of our State. I don’t like the one-man power in any form in which you can put it. It is inconsist- ent, in theory, with the fundamental principle which all our Governments, both State and na- tional, are founded on, and, in practice , I think the effect has oftener been wrong than other- wise. I don’t think that all the wisdom of the coun- try has ever been concentrated in one man, or ever will be. And I don’t suppose that the act of making any man Governor, or President, imbues him with much more wisdom than he had before. But, in order to accommodate myself to the views of a very considerable portion of very highly respected gentlemen in this body, I am willing to support the proposition of the gen- tleman from Butler. I think it embraces, sub- stantially, the feelings of the very practical and common-sensed gentleman from Preble [Mr. Barnet], also, as it does of many other valua- ble members. I think that proposition embraces all that we should concede, towards preventing the will of the people from becoming the law of the land in any, or all cases. Sir, 1 know that the veto, even in this mild form, cannot be tolerated dur- i ing a single session of the legally constituted law-making power, without detracting some- thing from what we all, in theory, concede to be the unlimited right of the people to govern themselves by laws of their own making, to be 1 [106th [Thursday, executed by a Governor, or President, of their own selection. The idea of a veto in our country, had its origin in the formation of our National Consti- tution. It was derived from the British poli- tical system. It was a favorite political bantling of the old Federal party, in framing our National Constitution; and through their in- fluence, (they being largely in the majority in the old Convention), that it was adopted, and made part of our national political system. If General Washington had not abstained, as, I think, entirely, from exercising it, during the eight years which he administered the govern- ment, I have no doubt but it would have been one of the loudest and most potent causes of complaint by the people, which culminated in the overthrow of the Federal party, after its twelve years of administration, and the success of the Republicans — the real party of the peo- ple — under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. I am not sufficiently conversant with English history, to feel justified in saying whether its ear’ly use in that country was in behalf of the people, or not; but I do say, that for along series of years just passed, it has not been used at all, but has laid as a dead letter in the British Constitution. I have always understood that the present Queen declines to exercise the veto power; because the demand for it, should there be one, would likely be in the interest of the House of Lords. They are the special repre- sentatives of the nobility, and are generally regarded by the toiling millions, in the sweat of whose brows, and by whose toil-nerved arms the world is supplied with so large a portion of its wealth and happiness, as their worst ene- mies. As to the exercise of the veto power in our country, it was always followed by the bitterest denunciations of a large portion of our most intelligent and enterprising citizens, and it is a fact, well known, that its use by President Jackson, in vetoing the bill re-chartering the United States Bank in 1832, was a spiteful and revengeful act, to punish the officers of that institution for refusing to enter the cesspool of party politics. The President became very much embittered and enraged at the president of one of the branch banks, 1 think, at Lexington, Kentucky, and demanded his dismissal by the parent bank at Philadelphia; but the board of directors there, who knew the Lexington president to be an honest and capable servant, and who con- sidered such a demand by the President of the United States as an impertinent attempt to in- terfere in a matter entirely outside of his legi- timate duty, very properly, as I think, refused to comply with the demand. Hence, the veto, and as the result, the bank was forced to close up, and driven out of existence. It is frequently claimed that the people sanc- tioned the veto in this case, by re-electing General Jackson. I deny that this is the fact. Although he was largely re-elected, his second election would have been, by a still larger ma- jority, if he had sanctioned the Bank Bill, in- stead of vetoing it. By so doing, he would not only have still received the large vote that was given him, but would have retained, as his Iriends, a very large portion of the most talent- THE VETO POWER. Johnson, Baber, Hoadly. 1117 Day.] February 5, 1874.] ed, enterprising and efficient business men in the United States, who, on account of that veto, solely, felt it their duty to separate, and with- draw their political support from that very re- markable man forever. Sir, I will not deny that the veto has any good properties. I say, frankly, that there is seldom a proposition offered in this Convention, in which I cannot see something to commend. But it is our duty to weigh both sides carefully, and if the disadvantages outweigh the advan- tages, to reject it. Now, Mr. President, I do think that all the desirable properties of the veto, are secured in the substitute, which I was glad to see offered by the distinguished delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. That proposition provides that, if the Gover- nor thinks a bill too hastily passed, he shall in- terpose, and prevent, for the time being, its becoming a law, but must, in so doing, give his reasons for so objecting. Here, we have the full benefit of all the wisdom, and valuable judgment which our Governor may possess, ad- ded to that of the Legislature, who are the di- rect agents of the people, before any legislation whatever can become fastened on our statute- books as law. Sir, I hope, that in voting on this proposition, gentlemen will not forget that, in case the Gov- ernor refuses to sign a bill, and offers his rea- sons for so doing, that it will scarcely ever become a law by a simple majority voting for it over the veto ; but that a majority of all the members elected to both Houses must be first secured, before the law can take effect. Gener- ally speaking, from 10 to 15 per cent, of our legislators, at Columbus, are absent, and, con- sequently, quite a large majority of those pres- ent, frequently three-fifths, and, sometimes, a two-thirds majority, will be necessary, under our proposition, to pass a bill over the Gov- ernor’s veto. It has been claimed here, that the Governor is a better Representative of the people than the Legislature ; for, while the individual members are elected by, and represent, small localities, only, the Governor was elected by the people of the entire State. This, in one sense of the word, is true; but, as reasoning, is deceptive. Our political system makes the Legislature the direct agent of the people, for the specific purpose of framing and enacting laws for their govern- ment, throughout the State. And it defines the duties ol Governor quite as plainly, by say- ing, that he shall see that the laws are faithfully executed ; recommend to the General Assembly the enactment of such laws as he deems expe- dient; be commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces of the State, &c. ; with several other duties, which are distinctly defined. But the power to veto legally enacted laws by a clear majority of the law-making power, is not among them — neither do I think it should be. Mr. BABER. I do not intend to argue this question which has been so completely ex- hausted bv the able gentlemen who have al- ready addressed this Convention. I think the argument upon that question has been fully gone over, and I do not propose to weary this Convention, by any repetition of what I have heretofore said upon this subject; but I rise for the purpose of trying to vindicate, upon this floor, the truth of history. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], who with such elaborate preparation addressed this Conven- tion, endeavored to enforce upon the minds of gentlemen in this body, the idea that this veto power was a favorite measure of the fathers of the Constitution, and particularly that portion of the framers of the Constitution who were afterwards known and designated as the foun- ders of the Democratic party, were especially favorable to this veto power. Mr. HOADLY. I beg the gentleman’s par- don, if he will allow me to interrupt him — Mr. BABER. I am speaking now of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt]. I did not know that the delegate [Mr. Hoadly], had spoken to this question. Now, Mr. President, so far from that being the case, the founders of this government act- ed upon a distinction in this matter. While there was very generally a feeling prevailing in favor of the veto power in the Federal Con- stitution, for the reason that it was a govern- ment of delegated and limited powers, and for the purpose of enforcing the limitations con- tained in the Federal Constitution ; yet, so far as the State Governments were concerned, the history of the time shows that this veto power was not a favorite doctrine with the fathers of the Constitution. I have taken the pains since I have been on this floor to-day, hastily to examine the matter — the only preparation I have been able to make after reading the notes in the daily Cincinnati papers of the elaborately prepared speech of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Hunt] — and I find, Mr. President, upon an examina- tion of a book called the “Collection of Amer- ican Constitutions” of the first twenty-four States admitted into the Union, that all those States — but I am getting along a little too rap- idly. I wish to speak of the old original thir- teen before I come to these. I find, that of the original thirteen States at the adoption of the Constitution, there were only four, to wit: the State of Massachusetts, the State of New Hamp- shire, the State of New York, and the State of Pennsylvania, that incorporated this two-thirds veto into their Constitution. All the other States had either a majority or reconsideration veto, or, as was the case with most of them, no veto at all. And here I wish to call the atten- tion of my Democratic friends, who appear to have been led off by the ideas of General Jackson with reference to the exercise of this veto power in the Federal Government, to the fact, that the States which were considered the old Democratic States at the time of the forma- tion of the Constitution, and afterwards in the original division between the Federal party and the old Republican party, did not adopt this veto. The State of Virginia — the State of Jef- ferson — never contained a provision in its Con- stitution upon the subject of this veto at all, until the carpet-baggers and the scalawags, in 1867, incorporated such a provision into the Constitution, which, under military reconstruc- tion, was adopted in 1870. Mr. President, the old Constitution of 1776, framed by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefterson, and the men of the Revolution, contained no provision for a 1118 THE VETO POWER. [106th veto power ; and in 1830, when the new Con- vention was called, and some of the most illus- trious of the fathers of the Republic were sum- moned by their fellow-citizens to come from their retirement and take part in the formation of that Constitution — the Marshalls, and Mon- roes and Madisons — in that Convention there was not a word breathed on the subject of this veto, no provison was made for it, and they made no change, whatsoever, upon this subject. I take it, then, that the ad- vocates of the veto power derive no support, so far as the question of State government is con- cerned, from the example of Virginia — from whose Constitution, by the way, our own State Constitution was copied in this respect ; for it is a well known fact that the Convention which framed the Constitution was presided over by Governor Tiffin, who, with Governor Worth- ington, also, was from my native county, Jef- ferson, in the State of Virginia. Indeed , a large number of the leading members of the Conven- tion of 1802 were from that State. Yet there was no provision incorporated upon the sub- ject of this veto power ; and it is perfectly well known that the administration of Jefferson, the Democratic administration then in power, and with whose approbation that Constitution was framed, did not sanction any such idea, at all. Passing, now, from the State of Virginia, I come to the State of North Carolina, whose Con- stitutional Convention was presided over by Cas- well ; to the State of South Carolina, the State of Georgia, the State of Delaware, the State of Mary- land — all old, original States — in none of which was there any veto power, with the exception I have named. Coming down further : what was the history of the first States admitted under the Constitution of the United States? The State of Vermont, which is the most perfect specimen of a Democracy which we have in this country, contained no provision with reference to the veto power. The same was the case with reference to the State of Kentucky, except that a provision for a majority, or reconsideration, veto was inserted in its Constitution. And, coming to the next State, I wish to call the at- tention of my friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt] to the record of Andrew Jackson upon this subject. Mr. VORIS. I wish to ask the gentleman, who spoke of Vermont being a perfect Democ- racy, if that is in consequence of there being so few Democrats in that State ? Mr. COATS. If I may be allowed to answer, as the only Representative upon this floor of that State, I do not think that would prove it. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate from Franklin [Mr. Baber] allow me to ask, whether the carpet-baggers and scalawags have done as much for North Carolina, and South Carolina, and Georgia, as he says they have done for Virginia? Mr. BABER. Yes, sir; except they have in- serted a two-thirds veto in the Constitutions of those States, which did not exist under the old Constitutions. I want to call the attention of the gentleman from Hamilton, who has referred the Convention to the authority of Old Hickory. ilton ? Mr. BABER. Either one that referred to this veto power. Mr. HOADLY. There are ten of us. Mr. BABER. Either one of the two who argued the question, [Messrs. Hunt and Hoadly]. In the Constitutional Convention of Tennessee, held at Knoxville, in 1796, on the 6th of February, amongst the members of that Convention was Andrew Jackson, afterwards President of the United States. His name is signed as a member of that Convention, and yet, in the Convention which framed the Con- stitution of the State of Tennessee, where, if this veto power had been so very dear to the men of that day, some provision securing it would have been made. So far from that being the case, there was only provision made in that Constitution, that the Governor should have the majority or reconsideration veto, as provided for in the proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], which I shall most cordially support. Mr. COATS. Will the gentleman allow me to suggest, that the Constitution of the State of Ohio was modeled from the Constitution of the State of Tennessee? If he will go over the two Constitutions, section by section, as I have, he will find over twenty sections, I believe, that are identical. Mr. BABER. I have no doubt the gentleman from Union [Mr. Coats], is correct about this matter. Coming down still further, take the Constitu- tion of the State of Kentucky, framed August 17, 1799. Nobody doubts of what party were the class of men who controlled the politics of the State of Kentucky. Every one knows that the power of the Jefferson administration was the power dominant there, and yet the Consti- tution of Kentucky contained a provision pro- viding only for this majority or reconsideration veto. Not to go further into detail, examine the Constitution of the State of Ohio, of 1802 ; the Constitution of Indiana, adopted June 10, 1816; the Constitution of Illinois, adopted August 26, 1818; the Constitution of Alabama, adopted August 2, 1819; the Constitution of Missouri, adopted June 12, 1820, and the Constitutions of what were called the old twenty-four States, previous to the agitation, with regard to the exercise of the veto power by General Jackson, in the Federal Government, and you will find no support for your two-thirds veto ; but seven had it. Of the eleven States that came in after- wards, the States of Mississippi and Louisiana were the only ones that adopted this veto. Louisiana adopted it for the reason that she had a large foreign population of French, and dis- affected Spaniards ; and it was thought neces- sary, for the safety of the government, that the Governor should exercise the veto power. Therefore, this record, which has been got up so fancifully by my young friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], when tested by the facts of history, will not stand for a moment. Why, Mr. Presi- i dent, he went away back to ancient history, and cited the Tribunes of the People of Rome, as if there were any analogy between their case and ours. The Tribunes of the People of Baber, Yoris, Coats, Hoadly. [Thursday, Mr. HOADLY. Which gentleman from Ham- THE VETO POWER. Baber, Hunt, Hoadly. 1119 Day.] February 5, 1874.] Kome, as the representatives of the common people, were in contest with the patricians. We have no patricians in this country. Our representatives stand as the representatives of the people. The parallel of the gentleman, therefore, falls to the ground, and the whole of the fine-spun argument which he has built upon it, goes with it. But, Mr. President, coming down still further in the history of this matter, we find that, as I have stated, only nine of the twenty-four States had this provision. Com- ing down further still, we find that it was not until after the excitement that commenced with the exercise of the veto by the President of the United States, and with the questions growing out of the national banking system in 1836, that they commenced to engraft this veto power into the Constitutions of the new States. I recollect well, sir, hearing, when I was a boy, in Virginia, the remark made calling attention to the difference between the legislation of the State of Virginia and the legislation of the State of Pennsylvania. In the latter State, the Gov- ernor became a sort of autocrat, exercising a power that required a two-thirds vote to over- rule it. The matter became notorious, and the report was circulated that, after bills were passed through the Legislature of Pennsylva- nia, the signature of the Governor was either bought or sold, for the purpose of vetoing or passing the bill ; and it was a very profitable thing for the Governor. There never was any such disgraceful legislation as this existing in the States where the veto power was not con- ferred ; and it seems to me, looking back at the history of the past, looking at the distinction between the exercise of this power in the Fed- eral Government, and its exercise in the gov- ernments of the States, that gentlemen on this floor make a very great mistake when they seek here, in the State of Ohio, where the people have never asked for it, and where the majority of them have been opposed to it, to establish a sort of one-man power. Who is the Governor? How much greater is he than any other representative of the people, in either branch of the Legislature, in regard to qualifi- cations, that he should exercise this power of stopping the action of the majority of the Leg- islature ? I concur with the remarks made by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], and by other gentlemen upon this floor, that it would be well to have a reconsideration veto. I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], providing that bills shall be presented within three days be- fore the adjournment, would prevent all this trouble in regard to hasty legislation, this dif- ficulty of rushing everything through at the end of the session. It seems to me that the ve- to power thus conferred upon the Governor would be effectual enough for all purposes. But gentlemen reply, that unless you give a two-thirds veto, it does not amount to anything. I cite them to the fact, that in ten or eleven States of this union, including the States of Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, the State of old Democratic “ hard money,” Tom Benton, the only veto power that ever ex- isted there, was this majority, or reconsider- ation, veto. It is a well known fact, that ninety-nine out of every hundred bills that are passed, are non-political, and the veto of the Governor, calling the attention of the Legisla- ture to any matter, and asking for a reconsider- ation of it, has always had the effect of defeat- ing bad measures in the Legislature. If it should not have that effect, and if the Represen- tatives of the people choose to take the respon- sibility of supporting a bad law, why let them take it, and let them answer to their constitu- ents, and not seek to shelter themselves behind any Governor’s coat tail. Now, Mr. President, I do not intend to pro- long this debate any further. I simply rise for the purpose of correcting the history of this matter. My friend from Stark [Mr. Pease] has said, as I understand him, that there were only some three or four States that possessed this majority re-consideration veto. The fact is, that there are twenty-one States of the Union now requiring this two-thirds veto ; one State, — Maryland — a three-fifths veto. There are ten that possess the majority veto, and five — Dela- ware, Ohio, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia — that have no veto at all. If anybody will look at the legislation of these States, I think he will find that there is less to be complained of with regard to the legislation of Ohio, and the States of this class, than in the States of Pennsylvania and New York, where they have had this veto power. What would be gained by giving the Governor a veto in this State? If you fear corruption, as my friend from Logan [Mr. West] has said, it is a great deal easier to corrupt one man, than it is to corrupt a hundred. There is nothing at all in their argument; and it seems tome that if, after having been without this veto power in Ohio for the last seventy years, you now go to work and insert it in this Constitution, you will cause a very large vote to be cast against the Constitution itself. If you turn to the Re- port of the Debates of the old Convention, Volume II, page 293, you will find that even upon the very mild proposition offered by Mr. Mason, of Clarke county, to allow this re-con- sideration veto, the vote stood — yeas 41, nays 50. And I want to call attention to the number of distinguished Democrats who voted against conferring even the majority, or veto power : Blair, Clark, Collings, Hawkins, Johnson, Ken- non, Lawrence, Manon, Patterson, Ranney — who impeaches his Democracy? — Smith of Wy- andot, Thompson of Shelby, Warren and Way: showing that that Convention would not adopt the veto, even in its mildest form. Mr. HUNT. Which Convention does the gentleman refer to, the Ohio Convention or the Federal Convention ? Mr. BABER. The Ohio Convention Reports, page 293 of Volume II. That is the trouble with the gentleman. He has the Federal Con- stitution in his head all the time ; and when he rose to speak, he read his arguments with refer- ence to the exercise of the veto power in the Federal Government. If people would study the horn book of Democracy — the writings of Jef- ferson and Madison — they would learn to un- derstand the difference between the Federal Gov- ernment and a State Government; and that what applies to the one, does not apply to the other. Mr. HOADLY. How recently has the gen- 1120 THE VETO POWER. [106th Baber, Hoadly, Mullen. [Thursday, tleman from Franklin [Mr. Baber] studied the horn book he speaks of? Mr. BABER. I was raised in tlie State of Virginia, and I understood what were the prin- ciples of the party that governed the State of Virginia, long before the gentleman from Ham- ilton [Mr. Hoadly] ever did. Mr. HOADLY. But how long is it since the gentleman undertook to study the Constitution and reform the politics of Ohio? Mr. BABER. Long before the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], undertook to re- form the country by running an independent machine. [Laughter.] Now, the idea of these men — and I do not wish to be diverted from my argument — was this : that the State governments rested on an entirely different basis from that of the Federal Government. The Federal Government was possessed of limited powers, and for the purpose of guarding these limited powers this veto was entrusted to the Federal Executive. But that is not the case with the State government. There is no such necessity for any such thing in a State. The people of a State are able to take care of their own interests, and the gentleman well understands that, “when the reason of the rule ceases, the rule itself should there cease.” I hope this proposition will be voted down, and that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], will be adopted. Mr. MULLEN. I desire, as this appears to be a general class meeting upon section 18, to state the reasons that will control me in the vote that I may give upon the question now before the House. As a delegate to this Constitutional Convention, I feel it to be my duty to make such changes in the organic law of the State as wis- dom and experience may dictate to be proper, and only such changes as experience warrants me in coming to the conclusion should be made in the organic law of the State. I am not will- ing, Mr. President, to go out upon the sea of wild experiment in the formation of a Con- stitution for the people of the State of Ohio. In my judgment, the proper course to be pur- sued by ourselves, as members of this Conven- tion, is that which may be dictated by wisdom and sound judgment. In the light of experi- ence, I ask you, Mr. President, if there is anything in the history of Ohio for the last three-quarters of a century, to warrant this Convention in coming to the conclusion that the people of this State desire the veto power to be vested in the chief executive of the State ? If there has been such a desire on the part of any considerable portion of the citizens of Ohio, I have failed — utterly failed — to discover it. I speak, especially, Mr. President, from a knowledge of the citizens of my own county with whom I have conversed, and I undertake to say, that not ten men out of the entire popu- lation of the county, are desirous of having this veto power conferred upon the Governor. Why, then, Mr. President, seeing that this is not a progressive movement, should we be asked to go baek. This is not a new and untried ex- periment; it is older than the government of the State of Ohio, or the government of the United States. It is not the outgrowth of a Republican form of government; because I say, most emphatically, that it is anti- Democratic ; that it is opposed to every principle and mea- sure of a Republican form of government. It is subversive of the principles of a Republican form of government, for our government is formed upon the basis and theory of self-government; and it was for the reason that our fathers had suffered from this extraordinary power — this one-man power — that they looked about them for a more liberalized form of government. I say this veto power is the outgrowth of an il- liberal form of government. It suppresses the majority in a Republican form of government, and our theory of government is that a majori- ty only shall rule in this cpuntry, and if a po- litical organization has succeeded in obtaining power in a State or in the Nation, everybody ac- cords to that organization the rightful authority to govern according to the rules and organization of such a body. To throw in this extraordina- ry power, which is illiberal and anti-democratic in theory, subverts the very principles of our government — the government of the people by the people. And, Mr. President, by conferring this ex- traordinary power — the veto power — we make three distinctive powers of legislation in the State of Ohio. The very Article on the Legis- lative Department provides that the legislative power shall be vested in the Senate and House of Representatives; and now we proceed further and say that this legislative power of the veto shall be vested in the Governor of the State, thus constituting three Legislative De- partments in the State of Ohio. I am opposed, Mr. President, to the exercise of the veto power, or to vesting the exercise of the veto power in the Executive of the State, in any form or in any shape ; but if we are to have this power, I prefer that it should be in the mild form which is suggested in the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Yet I am opposed to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Butler; but whether this latter proposition shall become a part and parcel of the organic law of the land, or whether the section, as it now stands, shall become a part and parcel of the organic law, would it not be a pitiable spectacle to see the Governor of the State enter the Senate Chamber, or the Chamber of the Representatives, and have the members bow submissively before him, asking him what law they should or should not pass? And if the substitute of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell] be adopted, then the Governor may come into the legislative halls, not only to exercise this veto power, but he may enter them as an advocate for the mea- sure he may desire to have passed, pettifogging before the high tribunal, the legislative author- ity of the State of Ohio, either by way of the veto, or by asking that they may pass certain measures that may coincide with his views. Then I say, Mr. President, that you cannot pos- sibly present the proposition for conferring this power, in any form that I will favor, and I am satisfied that the people of Ohio desire no such thing. For three-quarters of a century, we have had a Legislature that will compare favorably with the Legislature of any other State, or with the legislative body of the Union. Where has been the extraordinary legislation that we are now asked to prohibit by conferring Day.] THE VETO POWER. _ February 5, 1874.] Mullen, Burns, Baber, Boot, Clark of R., West, etc. 1121 this veto power? Has there been anything hastily enacted ? Suppose there has been legis- lation that is improper ; suppose a law is enact- ed in 1874 that is not a good law, and that should not have been passed, the people will right themselves in 1875, without this extraordinary veto power vested in the Governor. Let the matter remain, therefore, as our fathers estab- lished it in 1802, and re-established in 1851 ; and I am satisfied that the people of the State of Ohio will coincide with their views. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out section 18. Mr. BURNS. I move the Convention do now adjourn. [“No! No!”] Mr. BxlBER. I demand a call of the yeas and nays. Objection was made. Eighteen members rose to support the demand, but the President declared it not sustained. The question was then put upon the motion to adjourn, which, without a division, was not agreed to. Mr. BURNS. I am not able to see the ne- cessity of forcing this question to a vote to- night. Several gentlemen, I know, have left the Hall under the impression that there would be no vote taken to-night. While the gentle- man from Adams [Mr. Mullen], was talking, several gentlemen, I know, left under that im- pression. The question is one of great impor- tance, and several gentlemen, upon both sides, desire to say something upon the subject. It is now near six o’clock. Mr. ROOT. I would like to know what is the question before the House. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out section eighteen. Mr. CLARK, of Ross. I think the demand for the yeas and nays was sustained. There were eighteen gentlemen who voted for it, and that is more than one-fifth. Mr. ROOT. That question has been decided and is past. Mr. CLARK. That does not make any dif- ference. Mr. BURNS. I never desire to speak against time. I never did in my life, and do not ad- mire the practice ; but I shall be forced to do it at this moment, until a reasonable hour for ad- journment. I simply desire to say that the announcement I made is not a captious one. I desire to say something upon this question in the morning, and I know that the gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], who is sitting be- fore me, desires to be heard upon this question to-morrow, but could not be heard to-day on ac- count of the condition of his health. And there are other gentlemen — the gentleman from Sum- mit [Mr. Vobis], if I am not out of order to name them, and others — who wish to speak to the question. We certainly could not gain more than fifteen or twenty minutes time by going on now, and I think it is a little unkind to force any gentleman into an argument on this question at this hour. Mr. EWING. I move that the Convention do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT. That motion is not in order, as it was the last motion made. Mr. YORIS. Will the gentleman from Rich- land [Mr. Burns] yield the floor a moment ? Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Mr. YORIS. I demand a call of the House. The Roll was then called, and seventy-three members answered to their names, as fol- lows : Messrs. Adair, Albright, Alexander, Baber, Bannon, Barnet, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Bosworth, Burns, Caldwell, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Foran, Greene, Gurley, Hale, Hill, Hitchcock, Hoadly, Horton, Hostetter, Humphreville, Johnson, Layton, McBride, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Page, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Root, Sample, Scofield, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Thompson, Townsend, Townsley, Tripp, Tul- loss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Voorhis, Voris, Waddle, Watson, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Wil- son, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, Presi- dent — 73. Mr. WEST. I ask that the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt] be excused at this call, as he came to me previous to his departure, and asked me to pair with him. No objection was raised, and the excuse was granted. Mr. TOWNSEND. I move to suspend furth- er proceedings under the call. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move that the Conven- tion do now adjourn. The motion to adjourn was put, and declared agreed to. Mr. CAMPBELL. I desire to inquire for information upon a parliamentary question whether, pending a motion for a call of the House, a motion to adjourn is in order? The PRESIDENT. The Chair believes it is. Mr. ROOT. Pending a call of the House? The PRESIDENT. So the Chair understands. The Chair, however, will put the motion to dis- pense with further proceedings under the call. Which motion was agreed to. Mr. TOWNSEND. I move that the Conven- tion do now adjourn. Which motion was agreed to. Whereupon, at (5:40 p.m.) the Convention adjourned. y.ii-73 1122 THE VETO POWER. [107 til Rickly, Albright, West, Voris, Burns, Coats. [Friday, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTH DAY OF THE CONVENTION. FORTY-FIFTH DAY OF THE ADJOURNED SESSION. Friday, February 6, 1874. HALF-PAST NINE O’CLOCK A. M. The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- journment. Prayer by Rev. W. F. Black, of Indianapolis. The Roll was called, and 83 members answer- ed to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence was asked and obtained, for Messrs. Johnson and Clay, until Monday next, and for Mr. Shaw, for an indefinite length of time. Mr. Clay was excused for absence this week. The Journal was read and approved. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. Mr. RICKLY presented the petition of Thos. Jackson, and 250 other citizens, of both sexes, of Smith township, Belmont county, praying that the following clause may be adopted in the Constitution : No license shall hereafter be granted for the traffic in intoxicating liquors in this State; but the General Assem- bly may have power to legislate against the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating beverages. Which was referred to the Committee on the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. Mr. ALBRIGHT presented the petition of Wm. Logan, and 89 other citizens of Guernsey and Harrison counties, for the acknowledgment of Almighty God and the Christian Religion in the Constitution of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. WEST presented the petition of David C. Hockettand, and 253 other citizens of Logan county, praying for an acknowledgment of Almighty God and the Christian Religion in the Constitution of the State. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. WEST presented the petition of E. D. Smith, and 44 other citizens of Logan county, asking that the clause in the Bill of Rights re- lating to religion, morality and knowledge, remain unchanged, and that an acknowledg- ment of this as a Christian Commonwealth be inserted. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. WEST presented the petition of W. N. Vance, and eighty other citizens of Logan county, against license, and asking that the Legislature have power to provide against the evil resulting from, and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors. Which was referred to the Committee on the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. Mr. VORIS presented the petition of President S. H. McCollister, and 105 other citizens of Summit county, praying that no license in in- toxicating liquors be granted; but that the General Assembly may adopt a local option law. Which was referred to the Committee on the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY. Mr. VORIS. I move that the Convention now proceed to the special order of the day. The PRESIDENT. It is moved and second- ed, that the Convention proceed to the consid- eration of the special order of the day, being Proposition No. 190. Which motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question under con- sideration is the motion of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell] to strike out section 18, on which question the gentleman from Rich- land [Mr. Burns] has the floor. Mr. BURNS. I did not understand that I was entitled to the floor. The PRESIDENT. I understood the gentle- man to yield the floor, on yesterday, for a mo- tion to adjourn. Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor to the gentle- man from Union [Mr.CoATs], who, I understand, desires to be heard upon the question. Mr. COATS. In justice to myself, I will say, that I do not entertain the belief that the re- marks 1 shall make, in the brief time alloted to me, in the present stage of the discussion of this question, will, materially, influence the judg- ment of members, or affect their action, in re- gard to the votes that they may have already determined to give, either in support of, or against, the proposition now under considera- tion. Yet a sense of duty prompts me to raise my voice, at this time, to the end that I may, in this way, as well as with my vote, stand here, in my place, as a member of this Convention, and be found recorded, now, as well as through coming time, in opposition to this grant of power to the Executive of our State — a State that, during more than three score years and ten of its existence has lived, prospered, and grown great, among the family of States, denying to the Executive, during the whole of that time, this prerogative. I am opposed to clothing the Executive, now, with this prerogative, in any I and all forms that it has or may assume here, Day. ] T HE VE TO POWER. 1123 February 6, 1874.] Coats. with a view of being incorporated into our fun- damental law. Yet, as a matter of compromise, I may support the proposition offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], as that places it in the least obnoxious form possible in this direction, and, as I think, renders the prin- ciple harmless in practical results. If, there- fore, I must drink this cup, or take the pre- scribed dose, I prefer to take it in a diluted form — the weaker in form, the better it will commend itself to my judgment and support. I oppose conferring this grant of power by and in our fundamental law, because, I believe, in principle it is anti-Democratic, anti-Republican, and, in all its features, opposed to the progressive spirit of the present age; and, in like opposition to the present temper and will of the people — to their present temper, at least. This power was granted to our National Ex- ecutive by a constitutional provision, as a mat- ter of compromise between the friends and ad- vocates of a free, liberal, government of the people, for the people, based on the sovereignty of the people, and the friends and advocates of a strong, centralized government, in which the people should have but a small and restricted voice. In other words, this grant of power, as we find it in our National Constitution, was a concession on the part of the friends of privi- lege, made to the friends and advocates of prerog- ative against privilege; these two parties being represented (and, probably nearly equally di- vided in sentiment) in the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States. The student learns, very early in his researches into the history of representative governments, that there have ever been found in existence, therein, two parties. In the early history of the English Government, these parties were known as the “ court party ” and the “ country party ” — the one in favor of a strong, central- ized, power — the friends of the monarch ; the other, or country party, in favor of a diffusive power, emanating from the consent of the gov- erned. These last — the people, and the friends of the people — ever contending for the rights of the masses of the people against the encroach- ments of the monarch. These two parties existed in England for many years; in course of time, taking the names, respectively, Whig and Tory. In our own country, very early in its history, these same parties were found to exist; which, after the war of the Revolution, took the names, re- spectively, Federal and Republican. The Fed- eral party was friendly to, and its adherents were the zealous advocates of a strong govern- ment — a centralized government, with officers to administer it elected for life, during good be- havior, or for long terms of years. The Re- publican party, it is scarcely necessary to re- mark, was opposed to centralization of power in any and all forms whatsoever. This last named party, I assume, then, like the “country party ” of earlier time, .was the party of the people; and its adherents, the firm friends and earnest advocates of popular government: a government based on the expressed will and voice of the people, as the legitimate source of power. In support of this assumption, I now propose to refer, briefly, to the Debates in the Convention that formed our National organic law, as preserved and found in the “Madison Papers ;” by reference to which, I find, that the distinguished and able men in that body who opposed the veto principle of power, then sought to be conferred on the Executive by a Constitutional provision, in any form or modi- fication whatever, were — Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, Pierce Butler, Roger Sherman and Gunning Bedford. Those who favored the veto principle in a mild or modified form, were — James Madison and Elbridge Gerry. The ad- vocates of an absolute and unqualified veto, were — Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson. These are all the names found to be recorded for or against the principle of veto in that Con- vention. From these old “Madison Papers,” meager though they are — and unfortunately so, as I think — I find some of the reasons given by some of these distinguished men before named. Roger Sherman opposed this grant of power being conferred on the Executive, for the rea- son that he was unwilling to confer a grant of power that would “ enable one man to stop the will of many. He did not believe that one man could be found so far above all others in wisdom.” Mr. Madison was in favor of a qualified veto, yet he believed that a modified veto might be so regulated as to be made virtually absolute, and, therefore, he seems to have doubted its ex- pediency. It nowhere, I think, appears that he was a very strong advocate of the veto power, in even a modified form. Alexander Hamilton was the advocate of an absolute and unqualified veto, and, so far as I can learn, he was the only one in that Convention whose voice, to any considerable extent, was heard in its advocacy — he was doubtless its real cham- pion. He thought “there was no danger to be apprehended of the abuse of such power, under our Constitution, and under our form of govern- ment, as the King of England had not exerted his negative since the Revolution of 1688.” As a matter of history, I may here remark, just one hundred years had then elapsed, since a monarch had resorted to its use. To further sustain and make clear the truth of the position I have taken in this matter, to some extent at least, I will now read, as a part of my remarks on this proposition, what is found in “Elliott’s Debates,” by reference to which, I find Alex- ander Hamilton’s plan of government, sub- mitted by him to the Convention then engaged in preparing the present Constitution of the United States; Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, and William Patterson, of New Jersey, having pre- viously submitted draughts of a Constitution or plan of government, for the consideration of the Convention. The portion of Mr. Hamilton’s plan, which I will now read, is as follows : “3. The Senate to consist of persons elected, to serve during good behavior; their election to be made by elec- tors chosen for that purpose by the people. In order to this, the States to be divided into election districts. On the death, removal, or resignation of any Senator, his place to be filled out of the district from which he came. “4. The supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governor, to be elected to serve during good behavior. His election to be made by elec- tors, chosen by the people in the election districts afore- said. His authorities and functions to be as follows: ******* “10. All laws of particular States, contrary to the Con- stitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void. 1124 THE VETO POWER. Coats. [107th [Friday, And the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governor or President of each State shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governor or President. “11. No State to have any forces, land or naval; and the militia of all the States to be under the sole and ex- clusive direction of the United States; the officers of which to be appointed and commissioned by them.” The following are, in part, Mr. Hamilton’s comments upon, and in support of, his plan : “1 believe the British Government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such nas been its progress in the minds of the many that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. If it was once formed it would maintain itself. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the other, the masses of the people. The voice of the peo- ple has been said to be the voice of God: and however generally this maxim has been quoted and bel ieved, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing ; they seldom judge or determine right. Give, therefore, to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the govern- ment. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they, therefore, will ever maintain good government. Can a Democratic Assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the im- prudence of Democracy. Their turbulent and uncon- trolling disposition requires checks ” * * * * “Let one body of the Legislature be constituted during good behavior or life. Let one executive be appointed who dar< s execute his powers. It may be asked, is this a Republican system? It is strictly so as long as they remain elective. And let me observe that an executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life, than for seven years. “It may be said that this constitutes an elective mon- archy. Pray what is a monarchy ? May not the Govern- ors of the respective States be considered in that light? but by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term monarchy cannot apply. These elective monax-chs have produced tumult in Rome, and are equally danger- ous to peace in Poland; but this cannot apply to the mode in which I would propose the election. Let electors be appointed in each of the States to elect the executive, to consist of two branches, and I would give to them the un- limited power of passing all laws without exception. The Assembly to be elected for three years by the people in districts— the Senate to be elected by electors to be chosen for that purpose by the people, and to remain in office during life. The executive to have the power of negativ- ing all laws; to make war or jxeace, with the advice of the Senate— to make treaties with their advice, but have the sole direction of all military operations, and to send ambassadors, and appoint all militarv officers, and to pardon all offendei-s, treason excepted, unless by advice of the Senate. On his death or removal, the President of the Senate to officiate, with the same powers, until an- other is elected. Supi’eme i udicial officers to be appointed by the executive ana the Senate. The Legislature to ap- point courts in each State, so as to make the State gov- ernments unnecessary to it. “All State laws to be absolutely void, which contravene the general laws. An officer to be appointed in each State to have a negative on all State laws. All the mili- tia, and the appointment of officers, to be under the National government.”— [Elliott’s Debates, Yol. 4, page 82, Secret Proceedings.] I cannot commend this plan of government to the people of this country for adoption. Its principles do not accord with my ideas of pop- ular government, or my sense of right; and yet, had the friends of a strong government prevailed at that time, this plan might have been adopted by the Convention that framed the organic law of our nation ; the beauties of which we might have practically tested long ere this. I do, however, commend this Federal Hamiltonian plan to the careful and candid consideration of all members of this Conven- tion ; and especially do I commend it to the consideration of such as are now advocates of the veto in our State Constitution. I ask that they shall study well the arguments, and ana- lyze the reasoning employed by General Ham- ilton in favor of this prerogative, and his reasons, also, for advocating a strong, central- ized Executive Federal Government; and if this plan, and the arguments in its favor, accord with their ideas of what, in the light of past experience, of the practical working of our system of government, should have been adopt- ed then by our forefathers, or ought now to be adopted by us, for the government of our State, then they should begin by advocating and se- curing the incorporation of the prerogative now under consideration into our State Consti- tution ; and with this retrograde movement as a beginning, all other matters and things neces- sary to secure centralized power, and a strong Federal government of this country against the people — now the sovereigns — will be the more easily attained. All great evils result from small beginnings, is our experience. In the course of this debate, I have been forci- bly reminded of the striking similarity that the arguments and reasonings here used, by the friends and advocates of prerogative, bear to the arguments and reasoning employed by the early friends of prerogative against privilege, to which I have before alluded ; these were, in the nature of the case, the arguments and reason- ing employed by Alexander Hamilton, to whose memory and fame I would not do injus- tice. He was a man of great executive ability, of large mental endowments, a genius of high order, as a lawyer, advocate and orator, with few equals and no superiors, in and of his time ; but with all his greatness, and his many good qualities of head and heart, he was a monarchist, in his theory of government — hon- estly so, I believe. His arguments were the old arguments of monarchists; against popular government. He lacked confidence in the peo- ple. He was patriotic, and, without doubt, sin- cere in his views and expressions. His patri- otism led him to desire, and labor to effect the overthrow of the monarchical power of Eng- land over the American colonies, that he might establish a like monarchical power at home, over those colonies. The experience of more than three-quarters of a century proves to the satisfaction of reflecting minds that he was in error in his estimate of the people, as well as in his theory of government, as we all now believe. And the enemies of Republican government, everywhere, have been forced to concede that our form of government, of the people, deriving all its just powers from the consent of the governed, is the strongest and best government ever devised by human wis- dow, and now having existence on the face of the entire globe. The kingly prerogative of veto, like a plague spot, is fastened upon our National Government, in the organic law, having been put there by the means that I have before described, where it is festering, disfiguring the beauty of that instrument, and marring the har- mony of its, otherwise, symmetrical propor- tions. It may have accomplished some good, but I have failed to discover when and where its exer- cise has resulted in good to the people. Practic- ally, it has been, in its effect, an absolute negative, when resorted to and employed by an Executive, except when interposed by Andrew Johnson THE VETO POWER- 1125 Day.] February 6 , 1874 .] Coats. to thwart the will of the people, expressed through their Representatives, so strong and unequivocal in its expression, that, for once, in the history of its exercise, it failed — signally failed — in accomplishing its object, and the will of the people triumphed over executive domi- nation ; and I now venture the opinion, that if this prerogative were, to-day, plucked by the roots from the organic law of the nation, it would prove, in effect, promotive of the public good. It is the last relic of monarchy remain- ing to disfigure that instrument. I sincerely regret, Mr. President, that I am unable to see the force of the arguments em- ployed, and the reasoning urged, by the very able gentlemen who have preceded me here, in behalf of this proposition, and that, seeing and feeling the strength and force thereof, cease my opposition thereto, and give it my aid and support; but, being wholly unable to see or feel the force of these arguments and reasons, thus far presented for my consideration, I must, therefore, consistent with my convictions of right, still stand arrayed against it. And now, lest I may seem obtuse in percep- tion, and slow of understanding, or be deemed captious in my opposition to a measure, sin- cerely regarded by its advocates as meritorious, and correct in principle, I propose, in conclu- sion, to notice, very briefly, and, to some ex- tent, analyze, some of the arguments before re- ferred to, and then submit to the candid judg- ment of this Convention, to decide whether I ought to be converted thereby, and yield my support to the veto power. The gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Gris- wold] argued in favor of the veto, because he believed, in Ohio, the people were burdened with too much legislation, too many laws; hence, the necessity and the utility of the veto power, as a remedy for this evil ; claiming that, in the State of New York, where the Executive is now, and, during its existence as a State, has been, armed with this prerogative, this evil of which we complain did not exist; and claim- ing, also, as a logical deduction, that the non- existence of said evil was due to, and attributable directly, to this power of Executive negative — failing, however, to show that this power had ever been exerted by any executive of that State. To sustain this conclusion, moreover, the fact has been developed here, and demon- strated by actual comparison, that the legisla- tion of the State of New York is in excess of that of Ohio, annually, by nearly, or quite, a ratio of ten to one, both in the number of pages of matter and legal enactments. So much for the illustration, and the deductions of the gen- tleman therefrom. The gentleman from Ham- ilton, who now occupies the Chair [Mr. King], favored conferring this power on the Executive for the reason that it had once been demanded and obtained by the people of Rome, as a con- cession to them, and for their protection against the tyranny and oppression of the patricians, who, I will here remark, were the aristocracy of Rome, the party of prerogative against priv- ilege; they were the oppressors of the people, who were the plebeans. I should have yielded to this reasoning, and this very plausible argu- ment of the gentleman, but for the reflection that the reasons that existed for its demand and use then and there, do not exist here — never did exist with us, and in the very nature and constitution of our Government, both State and National, never can exist. Therefore, as the reasoning upon which this argument rested fails, I trust I will be pardoned in refusing to be converted to the doctrine by the argument aforesaid. The gentleman from Coshocton, is strongly in favor of the veto principle, for the reason, that, in his judgment, it is a great Dem- ocratic measure. I would respectfully ask if the doctrine of Alexander Hamilton, which was rank and odious Federalism in the earty history of our country, has now become a car- dinal principle of Democratic faith and doc- trine ? If so, when, I would ask, did it cease to be Federalism, and become Democratic in principle? Surely not when the Constitution of the State of Tennessee was formed. Gener- al Jackson, whose name has been mentioned here, by members in favor of the veto princi- ple, was a member of that Convention. The veto power was not conferred on the Executive, by any provision in that Constitution, which was formed in 1796. It is a well authenticated historical fact, con- nected with the formation of the first Consti- tution of Ohio, that came to my knowledge nearly a quarter of a century ago, that the Convention engaged in its formation, took this Constitution of Tennessee as a model, and I have compared, in my place here, forty-seven sections of the Ohio Constitution of 1802, with the Constitution of Tennessee of 1796 — both now before me — and find them with slight ver- bal alterations, word for word, and letter for letter, identical ; the one a transcript of or from the other. I think more than sixty sections of the Ohio Constitution of 1802, were copied from that of the State Constitution of Tennessee, which had then been some eight years in opera- tion, and found to work well. Jackson used the power — he did not create it. I think it is but simple justice to the character and memory of the good, true and able men of which the Ohio Convention of 1802 was composed, to attribute the reason of their action in this matter of the veto power to the fact, that they followed a good Democratic model — a Jacksonian model — rather than to claim it as the result of their prejudice against, or hostility to General St. Clair, who had, it is true, interposed his veto, to an odi- ous extent. How did a proposition of this kind meet the views of the able men of the Conven- tion of 1850-’51, largely Democratic, as has been already shown, by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Baber] ? The proposition was introduced in that Convention in a form exceed- ingly mild, yet it met with little favor, with Democrats then, nor can I find that it was claimed to be a Democratic measure at that time. The gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], is in favor of conferring this power, because it merely gives to the Executive the right to say, “I forbid it,” and thereby check the passage, by the General Assembly, of such laws, as he does not incline to approve, and thus refer the matter back to the people. My reply to this argument is, that if it shall require two- thirds or even three-fifths of the members of the General Assembly to pass a law over the l Executive veto, then, as in times past, it becomes 1126 THE VETO POWER. Coats, Burns. ri07th [Friday, an absolute and final barrier, interposed against all such legislation as shall fail to receive the Executive sanction — and the King’s prerogative could not thwart the will of a majority of the people more effectually and finally. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt] has made a lengthy, eloquent and forcible argu- ment in favor of the veto power, followed and sus- tained by his very able colleague [Mr. Hoadly] ; and while their arguments and reasoning failed to convince me of the utility, or crowning beauty, of this Federal, anti-Democratic, anti- Republican doctrine, yet I was again reminded of the striking similarity of their views and arguments as compared with the arguments and reasoning of Alexander Hamilton ; and I think their views and arguments are, and, in the very nature of the case must be, the views of all who now advocate, or in times past have advocated, a strong government, of executive prerogative against privilege. The views and arguments of these able gentlemen from Ham- ilton are truly Hamiltonian in spirit, form and ability. General Hamilton, as I have before remarked, was a sincere and able man ; and, on my part, in a spirit of sincerity, I concede to the gentlemen from Hamilton the possession of these noble qualities of mind and heart ascribed to him; but, I think their talents, exhibited here in the advocacy of this proposition, are worthy of a better cause; for, like General Hamilton, I think they are, also, in the wrong in their advocacy of this doc- trine. Mr. President, the people of Ohio are intelli- gent, honest and patriotic; and I firmly be- lieve they will repudiate the doctrine advocated by the friends of this prerogative, if the propo- sition now under consideration shall prevail here, and be submitted to them as an integral part of a Constitution, for their approval or rejection. Incorporate this principle of Exec- tive veto into this Constitutional plan, and we shall have planted the seeds of death in its organism, and, in the language of John Ran- dolph, of Roanoke, it will come from our hands with the “sardonic grin of death” stamped upon its features, and, I may add, with a hor- rible squinting towards monarchy. Verily, “ monster, of so foul a mien, To be hated, needs but to be seen.” Such a plan may live, and possess feeble vitality, with this virus coursing through its system, until the morning of the day when the people shall pass judgment upon it; but its life will be such as is described in language usually employed in criminal pleading, after alleging a mortal injury — it will languish, and, languisli- ingly, will live; and on that day of the mortal injury, wounding and poisoning aforesaid, dealt to and administered by this Convention, in in- corporating into its system this proposition, it will die, will be buried, and by an indignant people consigned to that deep described by Milton — “Below the lowest deep, a lower deep.” I do not use this language by way of threat- ening, or in a threatening sense, nor for the purpose of intimidation, and trust my remarks will not be received in that light. Such use of language, here or elsewhere, is in bad taste. I have merely given expression to my views, and utterance to my firm and candid convictions, in the performance of what I have conceived to be my duty, connected with my position in this Convention, as an humble member thereof. Mr. BURNS. Were it not for the fact, Mr. President, that the Convention did me the fa- vor, last night, to adjourn over to this morning, I would not feel disposed to say anything on the question under discussion. I am not at all anxious to be heard in this Convention upon this subject. I have no ambition whatever to be prominent upon this or any other question that comes before this Convention, further than to discharge what I believe to be my duty. I generally content myself with a vote upon all questions upon which I do not feel an especial and particular interest. When this question was before the Committee of the Whole for discussion, I took occasion to submit, in brief, my views upon it. The action of the Committee was in accordance with my views by a very large majority. Hoping and believing that such will be the result of the ac- tion of this Convention, I have contented my- self with the idea that it would be submitted to a vote without any particularly extended dis- cussion. But, as this question is now to be dis- posed of, perhaps finally, I feel a disposition to say what I have to say, now. I cannot hope or expect, Mr. President, to change the mind of a single gentleman on this floor, by anything I may say; for, probably, all have made up their minds, and come to the conclusions upon which they expect to vote. My eloquent and distinguished friend from Hamilton [Mr. Carbery], in his flights of im- agination and eloquence, undertook to carry the humble delegate from Richland with him to his lofty heights, and, in mid-air, feeling the weight of the load, and the weakness of his pinions, he was forced to abandon the under- taking, and leave the unfortunate delegate from Richland in mid-air to take care of himself as best he could, while he proceeded onward and upward in his flights of eloquence, to the high- est pinnacle. We are told, Mr. President, that the mother eagle, when teaching the young fledgling to fly, places it upon her back, and soars away, and, by a sudden movement, slips from under the young bird, and leaves it to take care of itself, excepting to keep a watchful eye upon it, and, if it fails to use its pinions to save itself, she, by a sudden swoop, flies down and receives it upon her back, and carries it to a place of safety. With regard to my friend from Hamilton [Mr. Carbery], he had not so much care as that; but he soars aloft, and leaves me to take care of myself as best I can. Mr. President, it is said, on the one hand, that the veto power is an arbitrary power, and, on the other hand, that it is a Democratic prin- ciple. Without entering into an argument to sustain either view of the question, at all, I may be permitted to say that, when a boy, not out of my “teens” — and scarcely entered them — 1 learned to admire and appreciate the prin- ciples involved in the veto by the Chief Execu- tive of the United States, on reading the cele- brated veto message of Andrew Jackson, in 1832. It is too late, in my judgment, Mr. Pres- ident, for the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1127 February 6, 1874.] Burns, Johnson, Coats. Carbery], to undertake to claim that this exer- cise of the veto power is anti-Democratic or ar- bitrary, after it has been exercised — repeatedly exercised — by nearly all, if not quite all, of the Presidents of the United States for the last eighty years. I believe that no Chief Execu- tive has" ever occupied that high and exalted position, but what has, at one time or another, exercised this restraining power over the law- making power of the nation. Gentlemen talk of the veto power as if it were an absolute power; they contend that it is a one-man power — a power which thwarts the will of the people; as if it were a principle injected into our Republican form of government, with its roots extending back, and finding a lodgment in the dark ages, and in monarchical govern- ments. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Was the veto power exercised by Mr. Jefferson? Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. President, I only speak from memory; if my memory is not at fault, it was. Mr. JOHNSON. Once more. Was it by all three of his predecessors ? Mr. BURNS. Madison and Monroe? Yes, sir ; it was. I say that gentlemen speak of the veto power as if it were an absolute power; as if it, in the hands of the Executive, either of the State or Nation, could be so wielded as to com- pletely, and for all time, thwart the will of the people. And, while gentlemen argue in favor of it, and seem willing to admit that the veto 1 power, in the hands of the Presi- dent of the United States, may be safely entrusted there, they deny that the same principle and same rule of action would lodge in the Governor of the State. They say that the United States are formed of different States, having different manners and customs, govern- ed by different motives and different laws of trade, and, therefore, the representatives com- ing up from these different localities do not represent a homogeneous people ; that their in- terests are so diverse and so antagonistic to each other that their action in the form of a law, does not express the entire will of the Ameri- can people, and, therefore, it is right and prop- er to lodge the power of the negative veto in the hands of the President of the United States. Now, Mr. President, I undertake to say that, in proportion to the territory occupied by the State of Ohio and that occupied by the United States, the interests of the people of the differ- ent sections of Ohio are as different from each other as are those of the different portions of the United States. More than that, the legisla- tive body does not always represent the will of the majority of the people. What I mean by that, is this : that a political party may have a majority of votes in either or both of the branches of the General Assembly, and yet in the aggregate vote of the entire State cast for those very same legislators, the majority may be on the other side. Take, for instance, the Legisla- ture of 1867-’68 — if I am not very much mis- taken in my recollection, the Democratic party had, in that Legislature, a majority in both branches ; yet, the popular vote of the State for members of the Legislature, was on the other side. There was a majority, taking the differ- ent districts in the State, of Republican votes. While there was a Democratic majority in both branches of the Legislature, there was a Re- publican majority on the State officers and for Governor, of about 3,000 votes. Gentlemen argue very forcibly and very elo- quently, that the voice of the people should al- ways rule; that the majority of the people is the test of the Republican form of government. I know that it is an expression as old as the government, and older, that “ the voice of the people is the voice of God.” Well, in the sense in which it is sometimes applied, I deny it ; whether it is Democratic or un-Democratic, I deny it. I say “the voice of the people ” is not always “the voice of God.” Mr. COATS. I would ask if that is not pre- cisely the language of General Hamilton? Mr. BURNS. I do not know whether it was or not. General Hamilton said a great many good things and a great many bad things. Will the gentleman say now, that “ the voice of the people is the voice of God?” I think that God expresses his voice in a more decided and more intelligent and more sensible manner. Mr. COATS. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say that the voice of God is always right ; and in so far as the voice of the people is right, it is the voice of God. Mr. BURNS. That is true; in so far as the voice of an idiot is right, it is the voice of God. Mr. COATS. I will say, that very generally the voice of the people is right, and is the voice of God. Mr. BURNS. I admit that the voice of the people is very often right, and notwithstanding that is true, it is very often wrong. What do you mean by the voice of the people ? Why, Mr. President, the voice of the people, by an overwhelming majority, crucified the Savior; the voice of the people burned men at the stake ; the voice of the people hung witches in New England, in an early day ; the voice of the people mobbed your churches, for the time being; the voice of the people does a great many things that ought not to be done ; the voice of the people, in a certain locality, is in favor of one thing, and the voice of the people in another locality, is directly opposed to that thing. In a Repub- lican form of government, after mature deliber- ation and careful consideration, we have to take the voice of the people as the nearest approach to the voice of God, and to the right, of any- thing that human morals can get in this world of imperfection. But, Mr. President, what are we doing here in this Convention ? We are en- deavoring to frame a fundamental law for the government of the people in the future, not for the government of the people in the past. I have heard it repeatedly announced, upon this floor, that the legislative authority is vested in the General Assembly. Well, Mr. President, it may be all vested in the General Assembly, but that is the very point that we are con- troverting here — that it shall not all be abso- lutely vested in the General Assembly. We are endeavoring — those of us who favor a qualified veto — to provide that the unlimited, uncon- trolled power of legislation shall not be vested in the General Assembly, alone. My friend 1128 [170th THE VETO POWER. Burns, Carbery, West, Campbell. [Friday, from Hamilton [Mr. Carbery], for whom I have the very highest respect, in every sense of the word, used an unfortunate expression, for him, I think : he said that they were “ endeav- oring to place a check which would control them” — I want to quote him exactly — “we want to guard against the tyranny of a mere majority;” and when I called his attention to that unfortunate expression, that was the time when his pinions became weakened, and he abandoned the load which he was carrying, and said he was referring to the National, and not to the State Legislature. Mr. CARBERY. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. BURNS. That is a privilege which my “youthful friend” shall always have of me. Mr. CARBERY. There is no doubt at all, of his correctness ; but then he has not allowed for the flap of his wings, and may be mistaken in the character of the load, and when he discov- ers the nature of his load he drops it. Again, he may have been mistaken, and what he thought to be an eagle up in mid-air may have turned out to be a herron. [Laughter.] Mr. BURNS. Well, sometimes a bird may mistake itself for an eagle; but, after soaring to mid-heaven, suddenly finds it is nothing but a common buzzard. [Renewed laughter.] Now, Mr. President, my friend from Hamil- ton [Mr. Carbery] said that they want to guard against the “tyranny of a mere majority.” That is just what the friends of the qualified veto desire to do. We desire to place in the hands of the executive of the State the power to check, for the time being — not absolutely and forever — this tyranny of a mere majority. I could cite numerous instances where a majority of one or two in a legislative body, presuming that they were, for all time to come, the law- making power of the State, have passed laws for which the people did not ask ; that were obnoxious to the people ; that were objectiona- ble in every form ; and they became laws of the State, and acquired the force and effect of law. They fix the rights, duties and responsi- bilities of citizens, in many instances, beyond the power of the supreme court to undo or set right in the future. For example, the law of descent and distribution, which could not be changed by the future action of the supreme court. The very next Legislature following that repealed these very same laws, and sent the men who had been active in their passage into retirement, because they were unwholesome laws. But they could not cure that which had been accomplished during the time they re- mained laws ; whereas, if the chief executive of the State had had the power to veto, or inter- pose his objection, and stay the passage of those laws, until the question of their utility and constitutionality could have been submitted to the people of the State at the ensuing election, then they would have had the opportunity of saying, by their votes, whether thej r were salu- tary or not. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman permit a question ? Mr. BURNS. I will certainly permit a ques- tion, but will not promise to answer it. Mr. WEST. Suppose that, after the passage of the obnoxious law, a subsequent Legislature should repeal it, and the Governor should affix his veto to the repealing act, how would you get along then ? Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. President, it is not at all likely that the s; me Governor who sanc- tioned the obnoxious law would veto the repeal of it, and vice versa. The simple result would be, that the law would not be repealed, and it would have to take its course for a future elec- tion and future Governor; and it would have the beneficial effect that it would send it back to the people, and make an issue between the Governor and Legislature as to which was right; and this omnipotent voice of the people, which is claimed to be the voice of God, would have an opportunity to determine which was right. If the Governor should veto the repeal of the obnoxious law — if it was an obnoxious law — the Legislature could repeal it over the Governor’s veto. And that is the very point we desire to make by the incorporation of the veto into the Constitution of the State. Gentlemen have argued here, and have an- nounced it upon this floor, that it would be much easier to bribe one man, to-wit: the Governor, than it would be to bribe a great many men in the Legislature. Well, that ar- gument, if it has any force at all, is quite as effective under the proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], as it is under the section which is sought to be stricken out. The proposition of the gentleman from Butler, if I understand it, is simply this, and nothing more : It simply calls upon the Legislature to reconsider, or to vote again, upon the passage of a law that they have once passed; and, if the same number of men, or the same men exactly, vote for it the second time that voted for it the first time, it becomes a law, notwithstanding the objection of the Governor. I believe that is the scope and effect of the proposition. Very well. Now, the proposition allows the Gover- nor himself, in person, to appear upon the floor of either House, and occupy the floor in stating his objection orally, by making a speech to the body in which the bill may be pending, to be rejoined to by others on the opposite side; or, it permits him to go into the body, and, one by one, getting their ear, orally to make known to them his objections. Or, it gives to anybody who desires the opportunity to approach a mem- ber of that body with a bribe, if they see prop- er to do so, as much in one instance as it does in another ; and I ask you right here, how many men the Governor or his friends would have to bribe, in order to defeat the passage of a bill which once received a majority of all the votes? Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman al- low me? Mr. BURNS. In a moment. If I understand it, Mr. President, although the bill may have been once passed by a bare majority, say, for instance, 53 in a House of 105, it may have re- ceived 53 votes on its first passage. Now, on the second attempt to pass it, the Governor, or somebody else, by the offer of money or some other favor in the way of a bribe, may succeed in changing the mind of a single man, and on a second trial, it will receive only 52 votes. It 1 then fails to become a law. Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1129 February 6, 1874.] Campbell, Burns. Now, I will hear the gentleman’s question. Mr. CAMPBELL. I would inquire of the gentleman, whether he does not know that in the earlier stages of the Federal government, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others, delivered their messages to Congress, orally? and, further, whether now the Governor does not communicate his recommendations and ar- guments to the Legislature by message, and whether he does rot have the right now, if he sees fit, to button-hole (to use the expression) members of the House upon the subject? Again, whether he does not have the same power now, if he is corrupt enough to do so, to attempt to bribe members to vote? If that be the case, whether there is any force in the gentleman’s argument? Mr. BURNS. The gentleman asks questions the answer to which is patent to everybody. That they did deliver their messages orally, I admit, and they may do it now. Governor Wood, when he was first inaugurated — I hap- pened to be a member of the Legislature at that time — did deliver his inaugural message, in the presence of both Houses, orally — perhaps read it from manuscript. In the recent inaugura- tion of our Governor, he delivered his inaugural in the presence of the members of the Legisla- ture ; it is true, not in the Legislative Hall, but in the Legislative Assembly. He may do it now ; he may communicate his messages orally, to the body, or to the majority of them; but, communicating a message, and making a speech in the body, upon the passage or defeat of a law pending in the body, are two different things. Mr. CAMPBELL. The proposition intro- duced by myself is, if I may be permitted to speak, that he may return the bill, with a mes- sage containing his objections. Mr. BURNS. Orally ? Mr. CAMPBELL. Or in writing. What is the difference ? Mr. BURNS. Well, if the gentleman can state the difference between making a speech or delivering a message, he can “chop logic,” to use the expression of the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], better than I can. If he can de- monstrate the difference between coming into the Legislative Hall, and making his objections known orally, and that of making a speech, he can draw a finer distinction than I can. That the Governor now has the power, if he sees fit to embrace the opportunity, to button-hole members — I did not use that word, but I will adopt it now— to button-hole members of the Legislature, he, unquestionably, has the right to do so. But, suppose that the Governor of the State was to come into the House of Represent- atives, or the Senate, when a bill is under dis- cussion, and go from seat to seat of members of that body, and undertake to whisper into their ears his objections, or his arguments in favor of or against any particular measure. I under- take to say, that the Governor who would thus demean himself, would receive the universal condemnation of both parties, in whatever body he undertook to do it. Why, Mr. President, one of the greatest complaints that I heard uttered against the gentleman who retired, recently, from the Chief Executive Chair of this State, was his habit, whether correctly charged or not, I am not here to say, of electioneering with the membersof the Legisla- ture, for or against the passage of any particular bill. My friend, the gentleman from Portage [Mr. Horton], who does not speak often upon this floor, but when he does, he generally speaks to the point, and with sense, says that it would release the General Assembly from the responsibility of the law. I am not able to comprehend the force of that objection. It is true, that, to some extent, it would divide the responsibility ; but if I am not mistaken in my course of reasoning, I think it would make the Legislature more careful in the passage of a law ; so that it would not receive the executive veto, and thus strengthen it before the people, because it had received not only the sanction of the Legislative, but the sanction of the Execu- tive authority of the State, and thus go out to the people with more force and with more pow- er, than otherwise it would do. Gentlemen talk about the power of the ma- jority, and this being a government in which the majority rule. Why, Mr. President, there are a great many questions, a great many things that come before the Legislature of this State, in which a mere majority cannot rule — where the 29th section of the second Article of the Constitution under which we now live, pro- vides in emphatic and unmistakable terms that the Legislature of the State, the law- making power of this State, shall not have the privilege and the right to pass laws for the ap- propriation of money for the payment of cer- tain claims, unless that law shall receive the sanction of two-thirds of the members elected to both branches of the Legisla- ture. For instance, and I refer to what is well known to every gentleman upon this floor, it is provided in section 29 of Article II of this Constitution: “Nor shall any money be paid on any claim, the subject matter of which shall not have been provided for by pre-existing law, unless such compensa- tion or claim be allowed by two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly.” Now, why is that? Why, it is for the purpose, Mr. President, as I understand it, of guarding against the payment of unjust and improper claims by a bare majority of the Leg- islature, unless a provision for the payment of these claims shall have been made by the prior Legislature, and that law shall have gone out to the country and been passed upon by the peo- ple ; so that when a subsequent Legislature un- dertakes to appropriate money to pay these claims, they shall have the sanction of law pre- viously passed for that purpose ; otherwise it shall receive the sanction of a majority of two- thirds before it shall be paid. What becomes of the omnipotent power of the majority in a case of that kind ? Why, we have had a most potent example of the salutary effect of that law in our own State. In one of the past Leg- islatures — I am not now able to say which, perhaps, 18G6-’67, or ’68, a law was passed by the General Assembly of this State by a bare majority and signed by the Speakers of both Houses, to pay what is known as the “Morgan Raid Claims.” It was passed and became a law, but it was found to be unconstitutional, be- cause it had not been previously provided for by 1130 THE VETO POWER. [107th Burns, West, Pond. [Friday, a prior Legislature, and it did not receive a two-thirds vote, and, therefore, became null and void upon the statute book, and, I believe, it was so declared. Since which time, Mr. President, I believe every Legislature which has convened has been vainly trying to pass a law for the payment of these claims. I am not now argu- ing whether these claims ought to be paid or not. I have never given that sufficient inves- tigation to determine upon their justness; but I know this, that the State, geographically, is very nearly divided upon the propriety of pay- ing these claims. The northern part of the State is opposed to paying them, as a general rule, while the southern part of the State, as a general rule, is largely in favor of paying them. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman permit me a question ? Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Mr. WEST. Does the gentleman suppose that, prior to the decision of the supreme court upon this subject, any Governor that could be elected in Ohio would have back-bone enough to face the political power of southern Ohio, and veto a bill that passed the General Assembly providing for the payment of those claims, with the fifty thousand votes that are down along the river here against him ? Mr. BURis S. If I was to answer the gentle- man’s question, it would require me to be able to determine how much back-bone prominent men in this State have. I cannot answer the question ; nor do I think the gentleman can an- swer it. I think it would require as much back- bone for the Governor of this State to face the hundred thousand in the northern part of the State that are opposed to it in order to sign it. I think it would require back-bone in every di- rection, and I am willing to believe, and do be- lieve, that there are a great many men in the State of Ohio who have back-bone enough to do right, fearless of consequences. They have back- bone enough to do what they believe the Consti- tution requires at their hands and take the con- sequences, whatever that may be. Mr. POND. Will the gentleman permit me a question ? Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Mr. POND. I merely wish to inquire, wheth- er, in the judgment of the gentleman, the sec- tion just read does not afford ample protection against such claims without the interposition of the veto ? Mr. BURNS. I do think the section affords I ample protection against such claims without the veto. But that is the very point I desire to make. It is, in itself, a veto upon this power of the majority, that has been so eloquently in- sisted upon on this floor . Gentlemen argue that we are to be governed by a bare majority. I say we are not. We have ourselves incorpo- rated into the Constitution a provisional in- junction, if I may use the expression, against the encroachments of an unscrupulous majority. I am perfectly satisfied with that section. If it | only applied to more subjects than it does I would be better satisfied with it. If this pro- vision extended to the enactment of those pernicious laws which authorize a bare majority of the citizens of a township or city to vote a I tax upon the people to build a railroad, 1 1 would like it very much better. Mr. President, I have a very great desire to place in this Con- stitution a provision authorizing the Governor, if he sees fit, in his judgment, to place his veto upon such laws in the future, and say to the Legislature that those laws are not the will of the people, and you must send them back to the people for their sanction before I will consent to sign your bill, unless passed by the majority required by the twenty-ninth section, in relation to these very claims about which we have been talking. Gentlemen talk, again, about what is the power of the majority. I wish to cite the gen- tleman, and I need only refer to it, though I prefer to read it, to the present Constitution, under which we are now living. It provides that, before the people of the State can change their Constitution, however odious it may be in any of its features, before they can have the privilege of changing that Con- stitution, in one section, it requires a vote of three-fourths of the members of the Leg- islature to change it, and before we can have the privilege of voting whether we have a Convention or not, it requires a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Legislature to even submit the question to the people. It is in this, as it is in a great many other things. We are all in the habit of talking about majori- ties, and about the voice of the people, without reflecting, Mr. President, that we are under certain rules and regulations, long since sanc- tioned and adopted by the people, by which a bare majority cannot control a minority of the people. But, Mr. President, I want to refer to another provision in this Constitution under which we are now living, to show how the political ba- rometer rises and falls, according to the nature of the circumstances under which it acts, and according to the state of the atmosphere in which it is placed. The Constitution of this State provides that the sessions of the General Assembly shall be held with open doors, not in the sense to which my friend from Erie [Mr. Root], referred as having been given to the ex- pression by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Michi- gan Legislature — that the doors, swinging upon hinges, should be open — but the law provides that the General Assembly shall sit with open doors. There is a restriction upon that, how- ever. The thirteenth section of the second Article provides — what? The proceedings in both Houses shall be public, except in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present, require secrecy. What is that? Tsvo- thirds of a quorum, two-thirds of fifty-three can order the doors of the legislative halls to be closed, and the Legislature can transact their business in secret, excluding the public, for the time being, from observation of what they are doing, if, in the judgment of these two- thirds of fifty-three, it be deemed expedient. I ask gentlemen, what becomes of your boasted majority in a case of that kind? I am not in favor of that section. It ought not to find a place in the Constitution of any State in this Union. It is anti-Democratic, and contrary to the spirit of our laws. But my friend from Butler [Mr. Campbell], put the question to certain gentlemen, whether Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1131 February 6, 1874.] Burns, Campbell. it would not be better to give the Governor, in the popular branch of the Legislature, sixteen votes, and in the Senate, six votes, and allow him to go into the House and vote them ? Mr. CAMPBELL. Cannot he send a page ? Mr. BURNS. Well, he can as well send a page to do that, as he can send in a page with his message. Why, Mr. President, the Gover- nor has no vote to pass anything. He can- not vote for anything. If he had the right to vote against a measure, by coming in and casting his six or his sixteen votes, he would, as a matter of fact and a matter of course, have his sixteen or his six votes to cast in favor of one ; so that the gentleman’s ques- tion is without any point that I, at least, have been able to discover. It may have a very sharp one, perhaps, or a very blunt one, and I be un- able to discover it. Mr. President, the veto is simply a negative, simply an objection, a lock put upon the wheel of legislation for the time being, which may be unlocked by the requisite number of votes. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him ? Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman seems to think there is no point to the question I put. Mr. BURNS. That is simply my opinion. Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman is entitled to it. But will he allow me to ask the question whether he would be willing to insert in the Constitution, a provision that the Governor should cast a vote of sixteen in the House and six in the Senate, against any measure pending? Is the gentleman willing to put it in that form in the Constitution, instead of the veto? Upon any pending proposition, before its final pas- sage, would the gentleman, instead of giving the Governor an affirmative vote, give him a negative vote of sixteen in the House and six in the Senate ? Now, perhaps, the question may have some point. Mr. BURNS. I will answer, Mr. President, in brief, that I would not. Mr. CAMPBELL. I did not know whether you would. Mr. BURNS. I should be perfectly willing, Mr. President, to sit down, if I was about to en- gage in any enterprise, and take the advice of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], in any matter that I wish to be engaged in : I would hear his advice, and if it was good, I would adopt it, and if it was not good, I would not; but I should not be willing that he should go against me, when I undertook to carry out my own project. It shows the strait to which the gentleman’s proposition reduces him. If it is worth anything, he says it ought to give the Governor the power and the right to go into the legislative body, and vote “no” sixteen times in one House and six in the other. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], in his always forcible, and always eloquent man- ner of advocating or opposing a measure, eulo- gizes Ohio as one of the greatest States in this Union. I will not mar the beauty of his eu- logy by repeating a single word of it. I in- dorse it all. But, Mr. President, while Ohio has assumed and maintained a proud position among the States of this Union, I ask the gen- tleman from Logan [Mr. West], whether the United States has not achieved an enviable rep- utation among the nations of the world ? Has not the United States placed itself upon an em- inence which challenges the admiration of the world, and has not the government of the United States always had in its fundamental law a provision for this veto power to be placed in the hands of the Chief Magistrate of this great nation ? The gentleman, in the remarks he made the other day, while he did not dispar- age the great attainments of the Chief Magis- trate of this Union, said that he could select twenty men out of this body as well qualified for the position as the present Chief Magistrate. That may all be true. But I ask the gentleman to run over in his historical memory, and name any veto that has ever been interposed by any Chief Magistrate of this nation that was not sustained by the subsequent action of the peo- ple. General Jackson, in the celebrated na- tional bank question of 1832, pending his re- election, threw out to the American people his veto against the combined money power of the country, and was overwhelmingly sustained in that veto. Even John Tyler, with all his want of popularity with the great masses of the people, was fully and completely sustained by the American people in his veto of the fiscal agency, or exchequer, or bank, or whatever the name it assumed, in 1841. It is said, Mr. President, that it will not check hasty legislation. Well, I can conceive of a case, I can imagine instances where it might not have the effect of preventing hasty legisla- tion. I will concede that there may be instan- ces, at the close of the session of the General Assembly, when bills are poured in upon the Governor for his approval, for his signature, when it would, perhaps, be physically impossi- ble for him to give them all due consideration. It is 30 with the President of the United States, I have no manner of doubt; and there may be instances when the Governor or President, for want of time to consider a bill, may fail to veto it, when it ought to have been done. But this is the exception, and not the rule. If I am not mistaken, he has ten days in which to return his veto; and, if it is not returned within that time, the bill shall become a law notwith- standing. It is said that the President of the United States spends hours, and nights even, in the ante-room of the Senate Chamber, in sign- ing bills that are passed at the close of the ses- sion. I do not know, Mr. President, that the fact that he should fail to veto bills for want of time, would make it any worse than it is now. He has to go through with the farce of approv- ing bills before they become a law, at all events ; and if he has the power to veto, it certainly makes it no worse than if he had not. But I claim for it more than this : I claim that it will prevent the passage of partisan measures — purely partisan measures. We all know that, in the history of the State, when one party has been out of power for a series of years, and the other party has had control of the law-making power, especiallj' when they have had large majorities, the party in the ascendant become arrogant and oppressive ; they become reckless, and are induced to do many things which they would not do if they were in a smaller majority, or if they were not entrenched, as they believe 1132 THE VETO POWER. Burns, Baber. [107th [Friday, they are, behind the power of an overwhelming majority. Then, when in the turn of the political wheel of fortune, this majority is supplanted by a majority on the other side, this new majority regard it as the first duty they have to perform to take up the statute book and repeal all laws that have been passed by their predeces- sors without reference to whether they are wholesome, or not. Now, Mr. President, in both views, I think, the majorities act wrongly. I do not think that a law that has been passed by one political party should be repealed by the other political party, simply because it was passed by that party. The law ought to stand upon its merits. If it is a good law, it ought to remain upon the statute book, notwithstanding the fact that it may have been passed by the Republican party, or the Democratic party, as the case may be. In a case of that kind, I am in favor of placing in the hands of the Governor of this State, whether he agrees with the polit- ical majority at the time in power, or not, the power to say to them, “ I object to this meas- ure, and, unless you pass it by a two-thirds vote, it shall go back to the people, for their ap- proval, or their disapproval.” The veto power, Mr. President, is found in twenty-nine States out of the thirty-seven States of this Union. In some form or other, the veto, or a modified veto, is found in twenty-nine States, including the great belt of States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with the single ex- ception of Ohio, I believe. It is found in In- diana, and in Illinois, on the west, and in Pennsylvania, on the east; it i9 found in the great State of New York, and in, perhaps, a majority of the New England States, or in some of them, at least. Why, Mr. President, the present Governor of the State of New York, the venerable John A. Dix, a statesman of tried integrity and long experience, in National and State affairs, was elected to the Chief Magis- tracy of the State by an overwhelming major- ity. He had, in both branches of the General Assembly of that State, a political majority of his own party, and yet, during the two years that he has occupied that high and exalted po- sition, he has placed the Executive veto upon more bills passed by the Legislature of that State, than any other Executive officer of any other State in this Union, with the exception, perhaps, of Pennsylvania, and yet, not one sin- gle veto has been condemned by any election that has occurred since he interposed the veto. It is said, Mr. President, that the fact that the present Governor of Pennsylvania has been called upon to exercise the veto power some sixty or seventy times, is an argument against the veto power. If it was, would not the peo- ple of Pennsylvania long since have elected a Legislature that would have voted down his veto messages? and if they be unpopular, if it should so result that they are in antagonism to the popular will, the people have the power, and they will exercise it in due time, and send such a majority to both branches of the Legis- lature as will overcome the veto of the Govern- or. Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman give way to a question ? Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Mr. BABER. I want to ask the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns] whether in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, in which the veto power has existed from the ori- gin of those governments, there has not been more corruption and rascality, and rascally bills passed, than there have ever been in Ohio and Indiana, and the States where it does not ex- ist? Mr. BURNS. So far as Pennsylvania is con- cerned — though I do not want to reflect on the neighboring State of Pennsylvania — I am in- clined to think that there has been in that State more corruption in legislation than in any other State in the Union; and it has resulted from the corruption, not only of the Legislature but of the Executive, or else it results in spite of the veto and not because of it. They have both been corrupted, and the veto power is not a panacea against corruption, even in the executive of the State. But if he is an honest man, as he ought to be, it will be a power against corruption in the legislative body. So far as the State of New York is concerned, I think that it is, per- haps, not liable to the charge which the gentle- man brings against it, at least, to a very great extent. Now, Mr. President, I have said nearly all I desire to say upon this subject, except on one other question. Much of the time of the su- preme court of this State is taken up in deci- ding the constitutionality of laws. A number of them have passed under the supervision of the supreme court of this State as to their con- stitutionality, and quite a number of them have been declared unconstitutional. The tax ques- tion, in its different forms, has been disposed of by the supreme court when that question has been made. The Boesel law question, that has worked so much injury and so much wrong in many sections of the State, if it had, upon its passage, been submitted to the intelligent and honest Executive of the State, as to its constitu- tionality, in my judgment, it would have saved not only the supreme court from that labor, but it would have saved the peo- ple of the State from loss and injury to an untold amount. Other laws, that I might enumerate, have shared the same fate, but too late to repair the injury which they have in- flicted upon the people while they were in existence. It is said that there are scores of men in the Legislature, in either branch, or at least in the most numerous branch, as capable of judging of the constitutionality of the law as the Governor. Grant it. But we all know that a member of the Senate, or a member of the House, considers himself a Representative of his particular locality, of his particular sec- tion of the State, or of his particular party in politics. And we all know, by past experience and observation, to what great lengths a Sena- tor or a Representative will go, even against his better judgment, in order to accommodate what he believes to be the popular will of his constituents. We all know in how many in- stances a member of the Senate, or a member of the House, will do what is called dodging a vote ; conveniently absenting himself from the Cham- ber when the passage of a bill is about to take place, that he cannot consistently or conscien- tiously vote for; but will find it convenient to be absent just at that particular time, rather 1133 Day.] THE VETO POWER. February 6, 1874.] Burns, Baber, West, Campbell. than shoulder the responsibility of voting against it, and thus come in contact with the will of his constituents. We all know, however reprehensible that con- duct may be, that it is frequently done rather than take the responsibility, or in the language of my excellent friend from Logan [Mr. West], he has not the back-bone to stand up and say “no,” when he believes that a ma- jority of his constituents if they were there, would say “ yes,” and he finds himself conve- niently absent. And thus there may be placed upon the statute-book, a law contrary to his better judgment, which, if he were present and voted against it, would fail to become a law, or vice versa. In a case of that kind, in my judg- ment, it is eminently proper that the Governor of the State, who knows no locality, who is not a Representative of any constituency, aside trom the whole people of the State, who has not so to vote as to please Hamilton county, or Logan county, or Richland county, or Cuyaho- ga county, should have the veto power. He is under no special obligation to those counties as to locality, and he is the Representative of all the people of the State. It is true, if you please, he may be a Democrat, or he may be a Republican, and, if it is a political question, he may feel disposed to favor his own political party; but where it is a question of the con- stitutionality of a measure, he cannot dodge the vote. He cannot by absenting himself from his office, shirk the responsibility of passing up- on the constitutionality of that law, whether it be one way or the other. Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman from Rich- land give way to a question ? Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Mr. BABER. I want to know how that ar- gument can have any application in Ohio, where it takes an absolute majority of all the members elected to pass a bill, and the absence of a member will count against it? Mr. BURNS. The two-thirds rule that I have read from the Constitution, it seems to me, might affect the proposition very materially. It might not, on a bare majority, but it would under the 29tb section that I have read. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman explain how? Mr. BURNS. I think the proposition an- swers itself. I think it explains how. Mr. WEST. I would rather the gentleman would explain. Mr. BURNS. He stands there to vote against, to argue against, to dispute and give his reasons, to object, and by every means in- terpose his objection, and on the final vote to vote against the proposition. It is true that you might say that a two-thirds majority can- not be changed by a negative vote. I admit that, and yet it does not do away with the force of the proposition that I have put, that if he were there in his place, discharging the duties of his office to vote, it would have the effect, either one way or the other, upon the majority — either a bare majority or two-thirds. Why, if the position of the gentleman be true, the other one-third might as well retire from the Hall and have nothing to do with the passage of the law. Or, in the other instance, the mi- nority might as well retire and have nothing to do with the passage of a law, for their pres- ence and negative vote amount to nothing. The proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], it seems to me, with all due respect and deference to the long experience of that gentleman, and to his knowledge and judgment in legislative bodies and in parliamentary law, and in everything that pertains to the success- ful and intelligent legislator, has submitted to this body a veto power which amounts to noth- ing — really nothing. The very same vote that passes it once, passes it the second time. And it is simply calling upon the body in which the bill may be pending, to reconsider its vote. It may be done by any member of the body in which the bill may be pending. Any member of the body having voted for the bill, may move a reconsideration of it within a certain limited time, and it is calling upon the members that have passed it once, to reconsider their action, and go over the work which they have done once before. It is merely giving to the Gover- nor the power which any member of the body, voting in the majority, already possesses. Mr. CAMPBELL. Suppose, however, there are a dozen objectionable bills passed at 8 o’clock in the morning, and the General Assem- bly adjourns at 9 o’clock by general resolution. Who is going to move to reconsider them? Mr. BURNS. Well, what would your veto do in such a case ? Mr. CAMPBELL. The proposition is, that no bills shall be passed within the last three days. There shall be three days for reconsid- eration, and the Governor may invite attention to the objectionable measures, and there will be an opportunity to move a reconsideration. Mr. BURNS. That is practically a provision, then, that the Legislature shall enact no bills three days prior to the final adjournment of the General Assembly — that legislation shall be suspended three days before the final ad- journment. Mr. CAMPBELL. Not upon everything. Only on bills ; not on joint resolutions, or reso- lutions having the effect of a law. Mr. BURNS. We do not enact laws by reso- lution. The concurrence of both Houses is re- quired to all laws and to all resolutions, if there be such a thing as a resolution having the effect of a law, which I do not admit, for the Consti- tution provides that all laws shall be by bill, and the style shall be, “ Be it enacted,” &c., so that the gentleman’s explanation does not help him out of the difficulty. Mr. CAMPBELL. Does the gentleman con- tend that neither branch has power to pass a resolution of any kind without the concurrence of the other ? Mr. BURNS. I did not say so. They have power to pass resolutions affecting their own body without the concurrence of the other; but that resolution does not become a law, nor have the force and effect of law. I said no such thing, that neither branch could pass any resolution without the concurrence of the other. I may say a great many things that are foolish, but that is not one of them. Mr. President, I have done with all I desire to say. I hope and trust that the majority of this Convention will incorporate into the Con- stitution of the State that we are about to 1134 THE VETO POWER fl07tli VORIS. [Friday, frame, a veto power, limited and negative in its form and application. I am not particular whether a two-thirds or a three-fifths, although I prefer the former. I am decidedly in favor of one or the other, but I will be content with the three-fifths majority, if I cannot obtain the two- thirds. Mr. VORIS. Discussion has taken a very wide range on this question. I, therefore, pro- pose to offer a few considerations to explain the vote I expect to give, and intended to apply generally to this great State question. The law-making power is the highest politi- cal function exercised by any people. Though our State system divides the powers of government into three great departments, the legislative, executive and judicial — which, in the appropriate exercises of their respective functions are each independent of the other, yet the law-making power is the supreme, sov- ereign power, except so far as limited by con- stitutional provisions that define the powers and duties'of both the Executive and J udicial De- partments, and commands every human being within the territorial limits of the Common- wealth. The laws thus made become the rule of conduct for the officers as well as the private citizen. In fact, no station in life is so high or so low, but his or her social relations are made, or unmade, fostered or prostrated, by the law- making power of the State. It is this power that gives form to all organized society, with- out which, human frailty holds irresistibly all the human possibilities in the lowest state of beastly degradation and barbarism. The capacity to make wholesome laws, and give stability to them; to justly regulate the intercourse of the members of society, one with another, are the great distinguishing qualities that make the difference between the best soci- eties and the barbarous state. The laws of a people are the standard by which mankind measure the greatness, good- ness and individual significance and happiness of any people. As the laws are just, enlight- ened and properly adapted to the needs of a people, do they enjoy the appropriate blessings of life; as these are wanting do they fail to realize these blessings — do they sink in the scale of human accomplishments. This power defines all our relations, both public and private; lets that which is proper and forbids that which is wrong. Life, liberty, property and human happiness — all are com- pletely within its mercy. All the domestic relations, whether of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant; the civil rela- tions, whether of public officer, citizen, or mere sojourner, from the birth of the infant to the burial of the octogenarian, are the subjects of the inexorable demands of human law, in gross and in detail, for every conceivable incident that marks any of these as social beings. It is this power that enabled our fathers to achieve their independence, to organize a system of government in justice and human equality; that inspired their descendants to repel all encroachments on their liberties, and to-day fortifies this great Republic against all that dares doubt or assail it. It is the same power that assures you, sir, every delegate, myself, and all we have associated with us, that we are free. What the distinguished delegate from Logan [Mr. West] said the other day, in regard to the power of the judiciary to conserve the liberties of the people, is thoroughly and doubly true of the legislative power. The practical unfolding of all our social insti- tutions being wholly subordinate to the law- making power, of what moment is it to the people that this power be most carefully guard- ed, intelligently constituted, and conscientiously and understanding^ exercised? The veto is one of the means that may be ad- vantageously employed in that behalf. The practical development of the law-making power calls into exercise the highest qualities of states- manship, the most abstruse of the sciences, for it involves a knowledge of all the needs and conditions of society, to master which requires long and pains-taking training and experience. The people cannot exercise the law-making power inhering in them as citizens, in their collective capacity, directly or immediately. It must be done by delegated agencies. This we do, in our system, by and through our agents, selected for that purpose. In our State all pub- lic offices are instruments, and only instru- ments, of the people, used to carry into effect some power of the State. All the rights and powers exercised in or by any of these depart- ments are purely delegated rights and powers, and only exist by consent of the govern- ed — we recognize none other as existing ; they are simply the rights, powers and immu- nities of the individual members composing the body politic. The rights of government are a mere fiction when spoken of, being another mode of stating those of the people. There is no such thing as aristocracy of, or in the instrumentalities employed by the people in giving effect to the powers of government. It is inconsistent to predicate of the legislative, executive or judicial arms of the government that they, or either of them, or any part there- of, are aristocratic, or in any sort combine the elements of the one man power, or are antag- onistic to the people. /Every manifestation of the governing power exhibited by any of our public officers, in any of the departments, is nothing more nor less than the manifest maj- esty of the people, whether exhibited by one man as the Governor, by five men as the su- preme court, or by one hundred and forty, more or less, as the General Assembly, unless the agent be guilty of mal-administration in office, which is a breach of the trust committed to him — a perversion and not a legitimate use of his functions. In each of these exalted places, ever since the State had an existence, have we put it in the power of one man to control the policy of the State in his special department. A majority of one in the General Assembly, or in the supreme court, finally and beyond any power of appeal makes or decides the law, and fixes the policy of the State as absolutely as though the measure had the unanimous concur- rence of the whole body. The Governor acts the same way, not as an individual, but as the exponent of the people through the great office he holds, except that there can be no division if opinion in his office. THE VETO POWER 1135 VORIS. Day.] February 6 , 1874 .] But, in all this, though it is in the power of one man, when the judgment of the aggregate body is evenly divided, to dietate the policy of the body, yet the act, when completed, is the act of the aggregate body, and this, again, is the sovereign act of the people. Why,- in this Convention, the most important body the people can call into being, charged with the highest political duties man can perform, fre- quently, the gravest questions we are called upon to consider, are made the provisions of the Constitution, or are stricken from the old, by the balance of one vote. Thus it is, frequently, in the power of a single delegate to fix or alter the most important provision of the organic law of the State by his vote. Is not he an aris- tocrat, a despot — is not his the accursed one- man power? As a free people, capable of self- government, can we tolerate it? This being a government where divisions of sentiment are settled by majorities, the judgment of one man must, from the very nature of things, fre- quently, dictate State policy, not by the exer- cise of arbitrary powers, as in absolute govern- ments or aristocracies, but as one of the accidents incident to the government of majorities, in a free State. But we may always determine what that majority shall be. It is, by no means, always a mere majority, in our system. Those who have assailed the veto power, because it is exercised by one man, and, therefore, makes the power vested by the people in one man de- cisive of the legislative will, under certain re- strictions, would hardly apply the legitimate conclusions of their logic to the election of any of our public officers, to the powers of the Gen- eral Assembly, or the appellate courts, or the other aggregate administrative bodies. Certainly, the friends of minority representa- tion cannot follow this logic to its ultimate results. But to remove the law-making power as far as possible from the accidents of the mere judg- ment of one man in doubtful cases, we propose to apply the veto power so that one-sixth of the General Assembly shall concur, in such doubtful cases as preponderate by the vote of this one-man power, if the Governor does not approve. Any measure that is of such doubtful expe- diency, as to be unable to secure the concur- rence of one-sixth of the General Assembly over a mere majority after its veto, had better not go into the statutes. The application of the veto power to our sys- tem is one of the most important and conser- vative agencies we can devise. It is simply a check upon doubtful legislation, and is a most salutary safe-guard of the people and their rights. The balance of power as now exercised in the Legislature is never responsible to the people. Who casts the balance of power vote, never will and never can be told. A Representative elected by one of the smallest counties in the State and one Senator of two average counties who know and care little or nothing for the rest of the State, so their immediate constituents are satisfied, can rule and ruin the great cities of the State, in time of rural or sectional hostility, and feel not a whit of responsibility to the State at large, whereas, if the Governor is made a constituent part of the law-making body, he will feel himself the representative of the whole State, instead of a representative of a senatorial district, and will act with reference to the in- terests of the Commonwealth as a whole. The Legislature is no more the popular branch of the government than the Governor; is not half so near the people, for the legisla- tors represent only a small constituency, while the Governor stands for the whole State. The former is largely controlled by sectional and local causes, and knows and cares but little for matters that do not directly concern his constituency. What cares the member from Ottawa for the concerns of Scioto, of Medina with Hamilton, Conneaut with Cincinnati. But your Governor counts in his constituency every man, and recognizes every interest in the State. Conservatism in legislation is an anomaly in the history of the State. Legislative power in an aggregate body is in its very nature irre- sponsible. Who can say, thou art the man ? Power exercised by one man in popular gov- ernments is more conservative, and always safer than if exercised by an aggregate body. One man feels the sense of individual respon- sibility, an aggregate body only a divided re- sponsibility. The fallacy consists in comparing dissimilars, and drawing the same conclusions from them. The one-man power in absolute, or aristo- cratic government is entirely different from the exercise of political power by one man in a popular government, and rests upon a totally different foundation. In the former it is the government of absolute force, regardless of the will of the people; in the latter it is only a manifest exhibition of the people’s will. It is, in fact, the power of the people speaking through their organ. From whence may we expect encroachment upon the rights of the people, upon the Con- stitution, from the Legislative or Executive Departments ? Has it ever been from the Gov- ernor’s office ? The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], has had a large State experience in the Legislative, Administrative and Judicial Departments. I ask him if he ever was called upon, in all his public life, to defend against the encroachments of the Executive? But who does not know that the supreme court, at every term, is com- pelled to throw up new judicial barriers against legislative usurpations. Yet the General As- sembly must be trusted, and the Governor may not be. This is consistency with a vengeance. The commanding qualities the Governor brings into the discharge of his duties, espe- cially as compared with the average legislator, are a very strong practical reason why he should be clothed with the veto power. The Governors of Ohio have uniformly been statesmen, always men of character. Not one of the twenty odd ever disgraced himself or brought the State into disrepute. Whatever may said of the intrinsic merits of the office itself, no man can say that the Governors have not been men who fairly represented the char- acter, intelligence, and moral sense of our peo- ple; and always, when challenged, stood by the people and their rights. Vastly more than you 1136 THE VETO POWER. Voris, Hitchcock. [107th [Friday, dare affirm of many of the legislative bodies of Ohio. Ignorance, inexperience and utter unfitness for high State duties, have characterized the majorities of many a General Assembly since the organization of the State. The office of leg- islator, the most important filled by the people, have never been held in high esteem by them. Men of mediocre abilities, possessing neither the fitness, abilities or accomplishments of states- men, have been considered as abundantly qual- ified to go to the Legislature. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the gentleman al- low me a question ? Mr. VORIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I wish to ask the gentle- man if he is speaking from personal experience when he speaks of the ignorance and incompe- tence of legislators ? Mr. VORIS. I am speaking of what I do know; though painful to me, I am compelled to make the statement as a matter of duty. Every two years the office has been passed around, to reward, or keep quiet, some ambi- tious ward or township politician, who feels that he ought to be elevated one peg higher than constable or township trustee. Do not tell it in this body, that such men do not need some responsible statesman to stand between them and the people when they attempt to make laws. That the people have been exceedingly heedless in the selection of their law makers is lament- ably too true. We, as their servants, are put here to revise the whole system of State government; and what therein is found defective, to modify and rectify. Now, are we to wait until petitions are sent us for that purpose ? That is what we were sent here for, the argument of the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], to the contrary not- withstanding. The legislation of the State under the present Constitution has been unstable, frequently trifling, always profuse, and controlled largely by sectional and selfish considerations. Nothing so much tends to unsettle confidence in the laws of a State, as unstable legislation. It opens the gates of your courts to a flood of litigation, unsettles legal adjudications, and property titles, and opens wide the doors to social confusion. Safeguards and limitations, the veto included, placed upon the mode of exhibiting legislative intent, are no more an attack on the sovereignty and popular will of the people than those that hedge in the offices of Governor or the courts. It is simply the will of the people directing that this or that public office shall exercise only so much of their sovereign power as they are willing to confer, and in the mode they see fit to have it exercised ; which offices possess no original or inherent powers. All are reflected powers. A Legislature of one body, or of one man even, in a popular government, is no more a government of one-man power than if you had a Senate and House of Representatives, augmented by the chief executive office possess- ing the veto power. The source of power is the same, the people — in whom inheres all poli- tical power. Every properly executed public act, whether of an aggregate body or of one man, is the act of the people, and just as popular in its origin and significance, if exerted by one man as if by a thousand. It is the act, after all, of all the people. But it is said the Governor possesses an ad- visory power, as if that had merits, and there- fore dispenses with the necessity of the veto. So it has merits, but this advisory power is puissant weakness if he has no other power in the legislative branch. Make his approval or disapproval an essential prerogative of his office, a factor to be taken into account in the passage of every bill, and you make his advisory power effectual, and then the people have a direct source to which they can go for protection against hasty, unadvised and improvident legis- lation, and where they can challenge an un- divided individual responsibility. The sense of individual irresponsibility felt by the legislator emasculates the virtue of legis- lation, and frequently makes a mere town meet- ing of the highest court of the people. To fortify ourselves against this, we devise cumbrous and vexatious modes of legislative proceedings. If all legislators, or a majority of them, were wise, capable, and true to their trust, who would think of providing in the Constitution for three readings, on three dif- ferent days, and the ayes and nays on the pas- sage of every bill, and other delays and hin- drances in the mode of making laws? The gentleman from Portage [Mr. Horton] says the veto puts it in the power of the Execu- tive to suspend the passage of alllaws. Notso; he can in no instance prevent legislation when two-thirds of the General Assembly are com- mitted to the measure. But is the passage of new enactments, whether or no, of so much importance that so judicious a safeguard as the veto may not be thrown round the legislative power ? Gentlemen reason as if there must be some irreconcilable antagonism between the legisla- tive and chief executive offices, and that the legislative must always be with the people, and executive always against them — an in- consistent and untruthful presumption. The Governor is as much the servant and the representative of the will of the people as the majority of the legislative bodies. And, individually, much nearer to the whole body of the people than any Representative or Senator, whose constituency are never larger than one thirty-sixth of the people of the State. Says the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] we are a homogeneous people. So we are, and our system of government is homogeneous. Then the safe guards thrown round the powers the people confer on their public agents, cer- tainly ought never to create antagonism in the government. If it does, it clearly proves that the people have not wisely selected their public officers, and that the agents, in that behalf selected, are not fit for the places they attempt to fill. But does a homogeneous people less need the safe- guards to personal freedom, and against the ag- gressive nature of official power and corruption, because it is homogeneous ? If so, please do ex- plain how and why it is so. Now for a little buncombe. It is proper to fight the devil with fire. The distinguished member from Logan [Mr. West] glorified the Day.] February 6, 1874.] THE VETO POWER. VORIS. 1137 matchless achievements of Ohio on the field, in the cabinet, and for her unequaled progress in the pathway of material development, and all with- out a veto, in a brilliant peroration that would have made a splendid Fourth of July sensation, and been quite as fitting on such an occasion as in an argument on the propriety of conferring the veto power on the Governor. I concede all that is claimed for the glory of Ohio. Here she stands, a beautiful virgin, peerless among our sisterhood of States ; as a bride, waiting for the embrace of her lover, rich, beyond all computa- tion, in all the perfections of person, virtue and intelligence, and full to overflowing of all the wealth that human desire can imagine, and ex- erting a more than magic influence over the destiny of her sisters. Notwithstanding all her transcendent prosperity and glory, has the dis- tinguished delegate forgot, that in the very acme of her glory, she called him from his re- tirement, and all of us, 104 delegates, to make a new Constitution, because of the unbearable imperfections of the old? During the last twelve years, Ohio has given a President of the United States for two terms, three cabinet ministers, two chief justices, and one justice of the supreme court, three generals of the army, several first-class foreign minis- ters, and some of the liveliest and most potent of the members of Congress. In fine, Ohio has, for all this time, held a controlling position in the councils of the nation, by reason of her deserts, because of her pre-eminent talents for State affairs, and her devotion to patriotic duty, and at a time, too, when amendments to the Federal Constitution were made for the asking, yet a lisp never came from all these Ohio states- men, that the tyranny of the veto demands its modification or repeal in that document. Why the gentleman from Logan, in the fer- vor of devotion to the absolute freedom of the legislative power, heightened by his sacrifices and services on the tented field, supinely per- mitted the golden moments of this opportunity to pass, when the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were waxy, and the whole body of the Federal compact was in a nascent state, and still the Federal veto stands. My God, sir, who knows what the country has lost by this painful oversight on the part of this political reformer ! Alas ! the day for the great work of redeeming the Federal Union has, I fear, passed, forever passed. You who have tears to shed, prepare to drop them now ! [Loud and prolonged laughter.] Seriously, now — [vehement laughter] — but did not Ohio win her laurels in the councils of the nation, where the veto power is exercised ? She is only one of the factors that make this mighty Confederacy, that to-day challenges the admi- ration of mankind. She would have held her own peerless in the race of inter-state suprem- acy, though your General Assembly met only once in two years and simply made the appro- priations, and then adjourned — with or without the veto. Let us for a moment look at what we accom- plished under the circumstances of the greatest social disturbance. The stupendous efforts we put forth to over- come the Rebellion, stimulated enterprise and developed powers we never dreamed of before. V.II— 74 One great effort only gave us vigor and confi- dence to accomplish other and grander enter- prises. Internal improvements, of every sort, never lagged a day. Manufacture and com- merce were never more prosperous, agriculture never so remunerative, and never, in all history, were all the elements of success so happily combined as for us during the war. An enterprise that was too great for accom- plishment while the South was the great polit- ical power in the nation, became one of the unquestionable efforts of the very daj’ r the monarchies of Europe were prophesying our overthrow. While one hand was extended to break the power of the Rebellion, and the other was bus- ily employed to supply the army, and keep the necessary enterprises of the State in a healthy condition, we undertook the greatest public work ever devised by man. I refer to the project of forcing a railroad through the vast, uninhabited plains of the central basin, leaping the Rocky Mountains with our locomotives, and bringing the Atlantic and Pacific coasts together by the distance-an- nihilating powers of iron and steam. But my most sanguine friend from Logan [Mr. West], would hardly say because we accomplished all this in a state of war, that we should always have the stimulant of the sword. Logic plays sad havoc with his rhetoric. I do not mean “ chop logic” I think that is his phrase, but the genuine stuff that dares own its legiti- mate deductions. But, sir, if he would deny the power to the Governor because it does not always prevent vicious legislation, do tell me what you will do with that power that sets on foot and gives effect to improper legislation ? That the Legislature does this is confirmed by the very Article we are now considering. That the members composing the legislative bodies are just as indifferent, illy qualified, and as liable to be controlled by improper motives as the Governors, is beyond all question, true. Will the gentleman from Logan apply the same rule to them he does to the Governors. If not, in the name of political consistency, tell us why ? But if, indeed, the Governor may be bought up by the great monied monopolies, how can his use of the veto hurt legislation unless a majority of the Legislature can be brought into collusion with the same agencies that bribe the Governor ? In the latter case, two departments of the Government must be bought up instead of one. But apply another part of his argu- ment, and say it matters not any way — the supreme court stands ready, in the plentitude of its virtuous power, to do ready justice, though both Legislature and Governor fail to do their duty. But this proves too much ; but it is the legitimate outcome of his reasoning. It must be confessed that the citation of New York and Pennsylvania, in favor of the veto power, is not happy, for if corruption has run riot any- where in Christendom, it is in these States. But this has been true despite of the veto, not because of it. Before the veto power can be efficient in corrupting the legislation of a State, the majority of both the legislative branches 1138 THE VETO POWER. [107th Voris, Albright, Pease, Hitchcock, Ewing, etc. [Friday, must be corrupted. The Governor possesses great influence and advisory powers, whether he has the veto or not. He is too conspicuous a mark to go into the lobby ; but if he does, how does the veto help him — he has no vote ? If a majority of the General Assembly be cor- rupt, the evil is not augmented by the veto power. If a majority are pure, it can never overcome that majority. But, the reason, for the low state of legisla- tion in the States cited is not in the veto, but in their system of Legislation. Both these States tolerate, yea, provide for special legislation of almost every conceivable sort. Every moneyed or private corporation, as well as all their mu- nicipal bodies, are the creatures of special leg- islation — the most corruting species of legisla- tion known to politics. It has fearfully undermined the integrity, not only of these States, but of Illinois, Connecti- cut and a host of others. Everything that has been urged against the exercise of the veto power by the Governor, exists in its fullest force against the exercise of the law-making power by the Legislature. Do we, therefore, deny all power to the Legislature? Not at all; but, on the contrary, we set ourselves to make as perfect an organization of that department, and throw round it all the safeguards that may be available to keep legislation in proper and safe relation to the great rights of the peo- ple. I shall vote for conferring the veto upon the Governor. I want to have the approving or forbidding power of the whole people set down by the side of the mere legislative major- ity. It will give dignity and importance to the office we have much neglected, and be a con- servative element in the legislation of the State : though not able to prevent all the evils of hasty, inconsiderate or vexatious legislation, it will tend to remedy their evils. It places the power where it may be exercised, and often will be exercised — and always for good. It is a move in a safe direction. Nor do I want any half-and-half veto that means nothing. Give the Governor the power strongly, and hold him responsible for its exercise. Mr. ALBRIGHT. I move we take a recess. The motion was agreed to ; and the Conven- tion (at 12:20 p. m.) took a recess. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 2 $30 p. m. presentation of petition. Mr. PEASE. I desire universal consent of the Convention to introduce a petition. Leave was granted. Mr. PEASE presented the petition of Hon. J. W. Underwood, and nineteen other mem- bers of the bar of Canton, Stark county, pray- ing that Stark county may form one common pleas district. The petition was referred to the Standing Com- mittee on the Judicial Department. Mr. HITCHCOCK. A few days ago, I gave notice of my intention to introduce a substi- tute for section twenty-three of the Proposition now under discussion. I ask that it be now re- ceived and ordered printed. Leave was granted, and the substitute was ordered printed. Mr. PEASE. I find myself under the neces- sity of being absent some days on professional business, and I ask to be excused from to-mor- row indefinitely. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. GURLEY asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence from after to-day. Mr. SCRIBNER asked and obtained indefi- nite leave of absence for Mr. Barnet, from and including to-day. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out section eighteen, in Proposition No. 190. Mr. EWING. I shall vote to strike out the section requiring a vote of two-thirds of each House to pass a bill over a veto ; and also to in- sert the amendment of the gentleman from But- ler [Mr. Campbell], authorizing a majority of each House to override a veto. To which I hope will be added the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], which provides that the Governor may veto any item or items of an appropriation bill, while approv- ing other parts of it. I think it would be well to give the Governor power to send back a bill to the Legislature, with reasons why it should not become a law. This would be a sufficient check on hasty, improvident, and unconstitu- tional legislation ; in short, on all vicious legis- lation, except such as may involve party inter- ests. It is true that when a bill is passed, in respect of which there is division by party lines, such veto would be ineffectual. But in those cases the Governor would be quite as likely to be controlled by partisan considerations as the majority of each House, and where such con- siderations are to triumph, it is quite as well that the party represented by a majority of each House should control such legislation and be responsible for it, as the party represented by the Governor. I do not regard the veto ques- tion as one of the first importance. Ohio has never given her Governor a veto, and no great evil is charged or chargeable to the omission. We have had very little corrupt legislation, and if we fear it in the future, it is not clear that the veto power would tend to check it. As to improvident and unconstitutional legislation, this power would be somewhat of a safe- guard ; but the majority veto, as proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Butler, will be almost always effectual to check such legislation. All that is needed in such cases, generally, is to have the blunder in the bill pointed out to secure its correction. The spe- cial local legislation, so much complained of as unconstitutional, and vicious per se, cannot, probably, be stopped by any veto. Bills em- bodying such legislation are almost invariably passed without opposition, as a concession to local demands, but with a full appreciation of their unconstitutional character. If passed over a veto at all, they would generally pass by a two-thirds as easily as by a majority vote. As to the historic instances which have been invoked here, I do not regard them as lamps to our feet. In Republican Rome, the veto was a right of the people, but it is not, therefore, a bulwark of popular rights in Ohio ; Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1139 February 6 , 1874 .] Ewing, Hitchcock, Cunninghan. and in monarchical England it was a kingly prerogative, but it is not, therefore, a check on popular power here. These historic instances are not parallel with our experience and situa- tion. We need not resort to them nor to ab- stract a priori reasoning, nor to the experiences of our Federal Government to learn the practi- cal effect in our State legislation of conferring the veto power. Better than all philosophic reasoning, than all Roman or English history, and all national controversies between the Whig and the Democratic parties on the nature and effect of the veto power, is the actual and ample experience of Ohio and her sister States respecting it. Twenty-three States have the veto, requiring two-thirds or three-fifths of each House to over-ride it. Ten States have the veto, requiring a majority only of each branch to overcome it — such a veto as is proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Butler. These States are Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Vermont, Kentucky, Ten- nessee, and California. While Ohio, West Vir- ginia, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Del- aware, have no veto at all. Each State is appa- rently satisfied with its system. No complaint arises in any of them respecting the veto pow- er. No parties have organized for its abolition where it is, or its establishment where it is not; for increasing a majority veto to a two-thirds or three-fifths veto ; or for reducing the strong- er to the less effective form of that power. This want of all political agitation on the sub- ject, proves that the conferring of that power on the Executive is neither essential nor inimical to the best government of a State of the Amer- ican Republic. The veto in Ohio would be but a mode of exercise of the same popular power hereto- fore wholly vested in the Legislature. The Governor, the Senate, and the House of Repre- sentatives will be chosen on one day and for the same two years’ term. The Governor and each House, collectively, are equally Representatives of the whole people, and will all equally and eagerly consult the opinion and strive to satisfy the wants of the public at large. The legisla- tive power of the people will probably be as promptly, effectively, and honestly exercised through one agency as through the other. The veto, therefore, does not stand as the bulwark of the masses, as in Rome, or of one estate, as in Great Britain ; but only as an instrument of the exercise of the sovereign legislative power which the experiences of our sister States show may be exercised by the Legislature alone, or by the Legislature and the Governor together, to the entire satisfaction of the people. I prefer to change our present Constitution in this re- spect so far as to give a majority veto to the the Governor as a check on hasty, inconsider- ate, and unconstitutional legislation, leaving it in the power of the Legislature, through a ma- jority of the members elect to each branch, to override the veto, if in their judgment the Gov- ernor’s objections are not sufficient. This change we can make, certainly with safety, and probably with public approval. But in the ab- sense of any popular demand or strong reason for establishing a two-thirds veto, I am not in favor of so great a change as that in the imme- morial custom of the State respecting the exer- cise of the law-making power. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move to amend the section. The Secretary read the amendment, as follows : Insert after the word “adjournment”, in line thirty- two, “and on questions pertaining to the transaction of business by the two Houses.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. This provision, which I seek to amend, requires that every order, reso- lution, or vote, to which the concurrent action of both bodies is required, shall be submitted to the Governor for his approval, except upon questions of adjournment. I ask that there be added to the exception, “questions pertaining to the transaction of business by the two Houses.” The object is, to save from present- ing to the Governor those numerous resolu’ions, of mere form, passed between the two Houses. Now, if it shall be adopted without this amend- ment, we shall see that, at the organization of the General Assembly, on the passage of a res- olution by the two Houses, directing the ap- pointment of a Committee to wait upon the Governor, and inform him that the two Houses have met and organized, and are ready to re- ceive any communications he may desire to make to them, they will have to wait until this resolution has been sent to the Governor, and indorsed by him; showing that he is willing to be visited by them. There are numerous reso- lutions of this kind, which are simply formal, in the transaction of the business of the two Houses, which, it seems to me, ought not to be required to be presented to the Governor for his approval. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At the request of several members of the Convention, I desire to submit to the President a question of order, and power, perhaps, under the rules : Whether we can now, in considering the section, inter- fere with the words “two-thirds,” as they were introduced, after striking out “three-fifths,” as it came from the Committee of the Whole ? The PRESIDENT. Not those words, merely, but in connection with other words, the Con- vention have a right to make any amendment that they mav see proper. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Under the ruling, I move to amend the section, by striking out, in line sixth, the words “two-thirds,” and insert- ing “three-fifths.” The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that this is tantamount to striking out the same words which were substituted by the Convention. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Chair will re- collect that the question was raised by myself, at the time that we were considering it before, as to whether, upon reconsideration of the sec- tion, the insertion of these words might be con- sidered ; and the opinion of the Chair, at that time, was that they might. The PRESIDENT. The ruling of my prede- cessor, heretofore, upon this subject, as I under- stand it, has been this : that the words, them- selves, are not susceptible of being stricken out, but a part of the words, themselves, or, a part of the words, in connection with other words, may, in order to make it a new proposition. If 1140 [107th THE VETO POWER. Cunningham, Hitchcock, Townsend, Powell, Tyler. [Friday, the gentleman chooses to re-cast the sentence, or shall have it in a different form, the idea may he gotten at by taking out those words, with others. I submit that for the consideration of the gentleman. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sure that there are some members of the Convention that de- sire, very much, that these words, “three-fifths,” should be inserted. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that the effect of Rule thirty-nine is, that if a motion to strike out, on division, is decided in the affirmative, and other words substituted, a motion, thereafter, cannot be made to strike out the same words, or the substantial part of the same words; but that an amendment may be introduced to strike out those words, in connec- tion with other words, so as to make it a distinct and new proposition, or motion. The Chair thinks that is the manner in which, heretofore, this has been considered. Mr. HITCHCOCK. If my recollection i3 correct, a motion was made, by some gentleman, to strike out the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole, at this point, and insert other matter. I am not certain whether I am correct or not. The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks not. Some gentleman expressed his intention of of- fering an amendment of that sort, but none was offered. Mr. HITCHCOCK. There was a division of the question on striking out. The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I think the Chair is cor- rect. Mr. TOWNSEND. I am not one of those who believe that the future destinies of this State hinge on the determination of this ques- tion of executive veto. As a State, we have grown great and prosperous without the veto, and, I think, would continue so in the future. But I also believe our State would be better governed if the right of veto, in restricted form , was conferred on the Governor. So believing, I shall vote to retain it in this section, as re- ported by the Committee. The change in the law-making power of the State — contemplated by conferring this right of veto — is not radical or in any sense, new. It is as old as the government itself, and is simply a question of policy for us to determine whether sufficient reason exists for us to make it a part of the law-making power of our own State. We now have two branches, and we will then have three necessary to pass a law. In determining this great question we need not and should not assume that the legislative body is corrupt, or in any sense incompetent. I be- lieve that our legislative bodies are to-day, and always have been, composed of honest men, who are anxious to do their duty. That this rule has its exceptions is also true. A few men in those bodies generally engineer all the bad legislation. The large majority intend to make no laws but good ones. In the early history of this State, the habits of the people were sim- ple, and they wanted but few laws, and the ne- cessity and advantage of the Executive veto were not felt or desired. But the growth of our State has brought a corresponding demand for more laws, and a greater opportunity is of- fered for sharp, designing men to rush through jobs — special legislation, and laws not well con- sidered. The Governor, should he be clothed with the veto, will be, to a considerable degree, responsible for improper or bad laws; and not being, like the Legislature, able to divide this responsibility with fifty-four others, he will look sharp and veto what, in his judgment, is unwise and dangerous. The Legislature knowing this, will be far more guarded and enact more mature and bet- ter considered legislation, and you will find the exercise of the veto, will occur but rarely. The Governor will feel the responsibility and will hesitate and use it with judgment — and only when constrained by public considerations to do so. I think this duty of revising all the legisla- tion before it becomes law, is wisely conferred on the Governor. Let one intelligent, unpreju- diced, independent mind be charged with this duty, and responsible to the whole State for re- sults, and in my judgment, you have made a long stride toward elevating the legislative de- partment of the State, and the future will prove the wisdom of our actions. Mr. POWELL. I would ask which of the two propositions is now in the section, two- thirds, or three-fifths? The PRESIDENT. Two-thirds. Mr. POWELL. I would say before I sit down, that the question here should be, the choice between the two-thirds, and the propo- sition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. That to adopt the number three- fifths, would not be consistent with what we have already agreed should go into the Con- stitution. That is : that we have required that a two-thirds majority should pass some laws ; and to make it consistent, we should insist that, if we adopt the veto as it is now before us, it should be two-thirds instead of three-fifths; because three-fifths is less than what we now require for the passage of some laws with ref- erence to some kinds of appropriations. I, therefore, think that the choice should be be- tween two-thirds and the proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], I shall support the two-thirds. Mr. TYLER. I have listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure, to the arguments, both pro and con, presented by the different gentlemen who have addressed this Conven- tion upon the proposition now under discussion — the veto power; and thus far, sir, I believe, the affirmative of this proposition has the weight of the argument in its favor. But, sir, I am not equally satisfied that there has been made one single convert for or against this prop- osition through the influence of the very many most able arguments that have been presented by gentlemen upon this very important subject. As for myself (and I believe the same is true of almost every delegate in this Convention) my mind was fully made up when this proposi- tion was first reported by the worthy Chair- man of the Committee on the Legislative De- partment to this Convention. I am in favor of the proposition as it was re- ported by the Committee, to this Convention — of which Committee I have the honor of being a member — and opposed to the amendment of DayJ THE VETO POWER. February 6, 1874.] Tyler, Scribner, Cunningham, Eeer, Campbell. 1141 the able and worthy gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. In almost every instance when the veto has been exercised, either by the President or by the Governor of any of the different States, it has been sustained by the people. We might say with equal propriety, perhaps, that it has been interposed for their protection — to arrest corrupt and hasty legislation. This, Mr. President, I believe to be no party measure, but one thoroughly Democratic — the sayings of gentlemen upon this floor to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, sir, I believe that in just such propor- tion as monopolies and rings increase among us, in just that ratio does the necessity for the veto power increase; but a veto that can be over-ruled by a less vote than a two-thirds, in my opinion, would be of little use. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out section eighteen. Mr. SCRIBNER. Upon that question I de- sire to be excused from voting, having paired with the gentleman from Preble [Mr. Barnet]. The request was granted. Mr. West was excused from voting, he hav- ing paired with Mr. Hunt. Mr. Pease was also excused from voting, he having paired with Mr. Hill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I desire to ask a ques- tion of the Chair. Suppose the Convention, upon a division of the question, refuse to strike out, then, can the section be amended even by a motion to reconsider the vote upon which the section is retained ? The PRESIDENT. A motion to reconsider would still be in order, this afternoon and within three days. Mr. BEER. I ask for the reading of section eighteen, which is proposed to be stricken out. The Secretary read as follows : “Sec. 18. Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Gov- ernor. If he approve, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall re- turn it, with his objections, to the House in which it shall have originated, which House shall enter the objections at large upon its Journal, and proceed to recon ider the bill. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of the members elected agree to pass the same, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. And, if approved by two-thirds of the members elected to that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the vote of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the per- sons voting for and against the bill shall be entered upon the Journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been pre- sented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the General Assembly, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall be filed, with his objections, in the office of the Secretary of State, within te i days after such avijournment or become a law. If any bill presented to the Governor con- tain several items of appropriation of money, he may ob- ject to one or more of such items, while approving of the other port ons of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects; and the appropriations so ob- jected to shall not take effect. If the General Assembly be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill originated, a copy of such statements, and the items objected to shall be separately reconsidered. If, on re- consideration, one or more of such items be approved by two-thirds of the members elected to each House, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the ob- jections ol the Governor. All the provisions of this sec- tion, in relation to bills not approved by the Governor, shall apply to cases in which he shall withhpld his ap- proval from any item or items contained in a bill appro- priating money. Every order, resolution or vote to which the concurrence of both branches of the General Assembly may be neces- sary (except on a question of adjournment), shall be pre- sented to the Governor; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of both Houses of the General Assembly, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.” The yeas and nays were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 41, nays 34, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Baber, Blose, Caldwell, Camp- bell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cowen, Doan, Ewing, Gurley, Hitchcock, Hor- ton, Layton, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Muel- ler, Mullen, Neal, Page, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Rickly, Root, Scofield, Shultz, Smith of High- land, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsley, Tripp, Tulloss, Tuttle, Waddle, Watson, White of Hocking, Wilson — 41. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Bannon, Beer, Bishop, Bosworth, Burns, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Dorsey, Foran, Freiberg, Godfrey, Greene, Hale, Hoadly, Hostetter, Humphreville, Kerr, McBride, Mitchener, Powell, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Sample, Town- send, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Yoorhes, Yoris, Wea- ver, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, Presi- dent — 34. So the motion to strike out section eighteen was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the substitute of the gentleman from But- ler [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. CAMPBELL. When I prepared this substitute, I was not aware that section 24 pro- vided that no extra compensation should be paid to any officer, except by a two-thirds vote : I, therefore, move to amend, so that it will pro- vide, that after the objections of the Governor, it shall require a like vote, that was required in the first instance, and also by substituting the word “ may” in two instances, for the word “shall.” The modification is to agree with the provision of the twenty-fourth section, which, if adopted, will require a two-thirds vote to vote any extra compensation to officers. This modification is to provide that in such a case, a like vote shall be required after the objections of the Governor have been stated. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the modifications. The Secretary read the amended section as follows : “Sec. 18. Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Govern- or at least three days before its adjournment sine die. If he approve it, he .-hall sign it, and thereupon it shall be- come a law; but if he do not approve, he shall send it to the House in which it shall have originated, and he may either return with it his objections in writing, or he may state them orally to the House; and the House may then proceed to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. If after such reconsideration, a majority of the members elected thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first in- stance, agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other House, to which also, the Governor may state his objec- tions, either in writing or orally; and thereupon, that House may likewise reconsider the vote on its passage. If, after such reconsideration, a like majority of the mem- bers elected to that House agree to pass the same, it shall become a law. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it.” 1142 [107th THE VETO POWER. Cunningham, Scofield, Baber, Carbery, Hoadly, etc. [Friday, The amendments proposed by Mr. Campbell, were agreed to. They are as follows : In the sixth line, after the word “House”, strike out “shall” and insert “may.” In the seventh line, after the word “members”, insert, “elected thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first instance.” Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I move further to amend the section by striking out the word “ majority” in line seven, and insert the words “three-fifths,” and also a like amendment in line ten. Mr. SCOFIELD. I call for a division of the question. The PRESIDENT. The question will be upon striking out the word “ majority” in lines seven and ten. Mr. BABER. There was a vote on this three- fifths, but it was at another stage of the pro- ceedings. The PRESIDENT. It was a different section, the section which has just been stricken out. This is an amendment to the substitute. Mr. BABER. I think the three-fifths is just as bad as the two-thirds. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is, in the opinion of the gentleman fromF ranklin [Mr. Baber]. Mr. CARBERY. I look upon this as an at- tempt to get the veto into the proposition of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One single word. It seems to me that if the Convention intend to give the veto to the Governor at all, it should confer with it enough power to make it, at least, respectable. It will only require in the House nine more votes, than a majority ; but still it would be a power — and the veto would come with power sufficient, at least, to make it re- spectable. Under the section as it is now pro- posed, it would give the Governor a formal leave to scold the Legislature, without anything else. It would be a wordy war in the General As- sembly. Upon the motion of Mr. Cunningham to strike out “ majority” and insert “ three-fifths,” a division having been demanded, and the question being : “ Shall the Convention strike out a majority?” The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted — yeas 35, nays 43, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Bannon, Beer, Bosworth, Burns, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Dorsey, Foran, Freiberg, Godfrey, Greene, Hale, Hoad- ly, Hostetter, Humphreville, Hunt, Kerr, Mc- Bride, Mitchener, Pease, Powell, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Sample, Town- send, Tripp, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Voris, Weaver, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 35. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Adair, Baber, Blose, Caldwell, Camp- bell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cowen, Doan, Ewing, Gurley, Hill, Hitchcock, Horton, Layton, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Page, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Rickly, Root, Scofield, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Towns- ley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Voorhes, Waddle, Watson, West, White of Hocking, Wilson — 43. So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. HOADLY. I move to strike out the words, “ or he may state them orally,” in line five, and in line nine, the word “ either ” be- fore the words “ in writing,” and “ or orally ” after the words “ in writing.” Mr. BURNS. Let me suggest, as I had an amendment on that subject, that the gentleman include the word “either,” in the fourth line. Mr. HOADLY. Certainly ; and if the gen- tleman has his amendment in writing, let him substitute it for mine. Mr. BURNS. I simply desire to strike out from the fourth line the word “either,” from the fifth line “or he may state them orally,” and in line nine the words “ either in writing or orally,” and insert “in writing.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I suggest that unless some other changes are made, it will not be in- telligible in that form. Mr. HOADLY. That may be, but what I wish to reach is, a vote upon the question whether the Governor shall be permitted to give his reasons for his veto orally. I am one of those who, though disappointed by the recent vote of the Convention, are disposed to try the plan of the delegate from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell]. I believe it will be better than to have no veto. It will require the Governor to take the responsibility of saying to the Legislature with regard to every act, whether he deem it Constitutional or wise. And in the hands of an upright Governor — while I do not regard it as valuable as the proposition that we have voted down — I believe it will enure to the good of the State, and I shall support it. What I object to is this: that the Governor may state his reasons by word of mouth; leaving the question to chance, as to whether there be a reporter present, or as to the accuracy of that reporter — whether the appeal to the people which the Governor makes shall be presented to the people as he makes it. It seems to me that this will be a very valuable State paper which he will send in, however brief it may be. Or if the Governor may be, as the delegate from But- ler [Mr. Campbell] suggests, incapacitated from writing by accident or illness, as the pres- ent Governor is, it will only require him to em- ploy an amanuensis. There is no difficulty in his stating his reasons in writing, and the ap- peal to the people can be made on the basis of his statement. More than that, I think, Mr. President, it may involve the Governor in un- dignified squabbles. Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will al- low me a moment, it may save some time. Mr. HOADLY. With pleasure. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am by no means tena- cious with regard to the verbiage of this prop- osition; and am disposed, so far as I can, with- out sacrificing any material point, to agree with the general disposition of the Convention. It occurred to me that, at the close of the session, perhaps, there might be quite a number of bills that the Governor would disapprove; and he could much more speedily and readily appear before the Legislature and state briefly his objections. But, on the other hand, as has been well said by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], there might appear to be some- thing undignified in his coming before the Leg- islature, though I do not exactly see that it would be undignified for the Governor to state THE VETO POWER. Campbell, Beer, Burns, Hoadly. 1143 Day.] February 6, 1874.] his reasons orally. I have no objections, with the common consent of the Convention, to have the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] adopted ; and leave the Governor, in all instances, to present in writing his reasons, so that it may he filed among the archives of the State. I would not have them go upon the Journal, because that is an unne- cessary thing. Mr. Hoadly’s amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the substitute, as amended. The Secretary read as follows : Seo. 18. Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Gov- ernor at least three days before its adjournment Bine die. If he approve it, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall send it to the House in which it shall have originated, and he may return with it his objections in writing to the House; and the House shall then proceed to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill. If after such reconsideration, a majority of the members elected thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first instance, agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other House, to which, also, the Governor may state bis objections in writing; and there- upon that House may likewise reconsider the vote on its passage. If after such reconsideration a like majority of the members elected to that House agree to pass the same, it shall become a law. If any bill shall not be re- turned by the Governor within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same 6hall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it.” Mr. BEER. I offer an amendment, at the request of several delegates. The Secretary read : Amend section 18 by adding thereto the following : “The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of ap- propriation disapproved shall be void, unless repassed ac- cording to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of entire bills, after the disapproval of the Gov- ernor.” Mr. CAMPBELL. By way of giving furth- er evidence that I am not pertinacious, I have no objection to that amendment. Mr. BURNS. I would like very much to vote for that amendment, if it shall stand on its own merits. If it is voted in, I shall have either to vote against the whole or for the whole. Mr. HOADLY. Vote for the whole. Mr. B URNS. I do not desire to do that. I do not wish to make any captious objections ; but if the amendment of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], as it now stands, should be adopted, I should then very cheerfully vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] ; but if it is now present- ed io me as a whole, I shall feel myself more embarrassed. r -jChe PRESIDENT. The gentleman objects to the amendment, as the Chair understands? (Mr. BURNS. I object to it. j The PRESIDENT. The question will be ujpon the amendment of the gentleman from Qrawford, [Mr. Beer]. ) Mr. BEER. With the leave of the Conven- tion, I withdraw it at present. I Upon the question, Shall Mr. Beer have ‘leave to withdraw his amendment? a division jwas called for, and being taken, resulted, af- firmative 24, negative 37. So the Convention refused to allow the ; imendmentto be withdrawn. Mr. HOADLY. I would not venture to say a word, were it not for the fact that the dele- gate from Richland [Mr. Burns] with whom I think I am in unison on this subject, and with whom I have acted upon this subject, has taken a view that surprises me. The delegate fails to see, I think, that the ma- jority of the Convention have decided, and by so emphatic a vote as to leave very little proba- bility of change of opinion, against the two- thirds and the three-fifths veto. Therefore, we shall have no veto at all, or be content with the majority veto. It seems to me that the amend- ment of the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer] is all the more important because of this state of affairs. It will enable the Governor, if this amendment be adopted, to send any item of an appropriation bill back to be passed on its own merits, and help to prevent the wrong so many of us have been objecting to, namely: when appropriations are passed by minorities swap- ping votes with each other — those who are in favor of one proposition being a minority, and those who are in favor of another proposition being a minority, trading votes and making themselves a majority, when the real majority of the whole House, voting independently, would not favor the proposition on its own merits. This amendment of the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer], accepted by the delegate from Butler [Mr. Campbell], will put it in the power of the Governor to require a recon- sideration of a single item, and thus force an honest expression of opinion from the Legisla- ture; if, at any time, he should become of the opinion that such trading, or log-rolling had been indulged in, and improper legislation had been the result. It seems to me that it is a most valuable addition ; and as my friend is in favor of it on its merits, for the life of me, I cannot see why — as we have to take the veto of the del- egate from Butler [Mr. Campbell] — he should not be in favor of adding it to the substitute. Perhaps he can explain. Mr. BURNS. My reasons for making the distinction that I did may not be sound, but they are these : the proposition of the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell], as it stands, does not meet my approbation; but if it be- comes a part of the Constitution, by a vote of this Convention, then, I desire to vote in favor of attaching the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] to it. Because, if there is any value in the proposition of the gentleman ftom Butler [Mr. Campbell], it be- comes more valuable by having the other attached to it; but I do not regard the amend- ment of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell] as of sufficient consequence, in my judg- ment, to put it in the Constitution; and, therefore, I expect to vote against it, but in voting against it, I do not want to be driven to the alternative of voting against the proposition of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. Mr. HOADLY. The vote on the amendment must be taken before the vote on the proposi- tion of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell]. My friend would like to record his vote against the proposition of the delegate from Butler [Mr Campbell], and, if it is defeated, he would like to support the proposition of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]; but is not the proper way to do, to make the amend- 1144 THE VETO POWER. Hoadly, Burns, Campbell, Scribner, West, etc. [107th [Friday, ment of the delegate from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell] as perfect as possible? Are not the friends of the amendment entitled to have it made as perfect as possible, before it is submit- ted to a vote— does not parliamentary law re- quire it to be done ? Mr. BURNS. I suppose they have that right. I am not questioning their right, at all. Mr. Beer’s amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the substitute as amended. Mr. CAMPBELL. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. SCRIBNER. I have not been able to write out the amendment which I proposed; but I can state what is sufficient to inform the Convention. It is, simply, to attach to the sub- stitute, as already amended, the concluding par- agraph of the original section: substituting the word “ majority ” in the place of “ two-thirds,” so as to make it conform to the substitute. The objectbeing to make it embrace joint resolutions within the prescribed veto. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman offers the following amendment as in addition to the sub- stitute : “Every order, or resolution, or vote to which the concur- rence of both branches of the General Assembly may be necessary, except on the question of adjournment, and on questions pertaining to the transaction of business by the two Houses, shall be presented to the Governor, and be- fore the same shall take effect shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by both Houses of the General Assembly, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.” Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection to that. The PRESIDENT. There being no objec- tion, the amendment will be considered as added. The question now recurs upon the adoption of the substitute as amended. Mr. WEST. I would suggest to the gentle- man from Butler [Mr. Campbell], after having stricken out so much of the provision as relates to the oral statement in the House, it is neces- sary to change the word “may” into “shall,” in the third and fourth lines. Mr. CAMPBELL. That, in order to conform with the other, will be necessary. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. It seems to me, that it requires a veto message to be sent to each House. Is that so? It has been amended so much, that I have not the whole amendment before me. Mr. CAMPBELL. The same message may be sent. Mr. BURNS. I suggest, also, “that he may,” in line eight, ought to be changed to the word “shall.” Mr. CAMPBELL. That has the same con- nection with the subject. The word “shall” should also be inserted in line eight. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move to strike out, from the eighth and ninth lines, the words, “to which, also, the Governor may state his objec- tions in writing,” and insert the following words: “House, with the objections of the Governor thereto”; so that it will read : “after such reconsideration, it shall be sent to the other House, with the objections of the Gov- ernor thereto.” That obviates the suggestion of the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphre- ville]. The PRESIDENT. Will the gentleman pre- pare his amendment? Mr. ROOT. One suggestion. I hope, in preparing the amendment, the gentleman will bear in mind to use such language as to delay the message in the House that first passes the bill, until they are through with it. Though there should be two messages, they should be sent to both Houses the same time the bill is sent to the one. Mr. HITCHCOCK. If I understand the reading, this first part of the section provides for the reconsideration of this bill in the House to which it shall be sent by the Governor. If, after such reconsideration, a majority of the members agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other House, with the objections of the Governor thereto. Will there be any diffi- culty ? Mr. ROOT. The message ought to go to both Houses as early as possible. Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], will yield to me a moment, I shall propose modifications which, I think, will place the proposition in much better shape. It was the striking out of the oral branch, as was suggested by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Hoadly], that has thrown the section somewhat into confusion; and, therefore, I propose to strike out the words in the fourth line, “and he may either return.” And the word “it,” after “in order,” so that it will read: “but if he do not approve, he shall send it to the House in which it shall have orig- inated, with his objections in writing.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is what I desire. Mr. CAMPBELL. Then, in the eighth line, strike out the words “to which also,” and in- sert in lieu thereof, “with the objections of the Governor,” so that it will read : “If after such reconsideration a majority of the mem- bers elected thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first instance, agree to pass the same it shall be sent to the other House with the objections of the Governor.” And then strike out “objections, either in writing or orally,” in the next line, and then I think it will conform to all the suggestions that have been made, and be placed in' proper shape. \ Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], will ask to- modify’ it in that form, I shall be very glad to accept the suggestion, for that was what I was seeking 1 . The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the section as amended with the alterations sug- gested by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell], The Secretary read : » “Sec. 18. Every bill passed by the General Asseml'ly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Gov- ernor at least three days before its adjournment sine If he approve it he shall sign it, and thereupon it sha 11 become a law; but if he do not approve, he shall send i't to the House in which it shall have originated, with hui objections in writing, and the House may then proceed t< > reconsider the vote on the passage ot the bill. If, afte:r such reconsideration, a majority of the members electee* thereto, sufficient for its passage in the first instance.'* agree to pass the same, it shall be sent to the other House , with the objections of the Governor; and thereupon, tha’t House may likewise reconsider the vote on its passage'!- If, after such reconsideration, a like majority of the menv- Day.] THE VETO POWER. 1145 February 6, 1874.] Scribner, Pond, Root, Campbell, etc. bers elected to that House agree to pass the same, it shall become a law. If auy bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it. “The Governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money, embracing distinct items, and the part or parts of the bill approved shall be the law, and the item or items of ap- propriation disapproved, shall be void, unless repassed according to the rules and limitations prescribed for the passage of entire bills, after the disapproval of the Gov- ernor. “Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concur- rence of both branches of the General Assembly may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment, or ques- tions pertaining to the transaction of business), shall be presented to the Governor; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disap- proved by him shall be repassed by both Houses of the General Assembly, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the substitute for section eighteen, as proposed by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell]. The yeas and nays were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 52, nays 28, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Baber, Bannon, Blose, Cald- well, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Freiberg, Godfrey, Gurley, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hoadly, Horton, Hostetter, Hunt, Layton, McBride, Mil- ler, Miner, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Page, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Rickly, Russell of Muskingum, Scofield, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thomp- son, Townsend, Tulloss, Tuttle, Voorhis, Wad- dle, West, Wilson, President — 52. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Beer, Bosworth, Burns, Cowen, Cunningham, Dorsey, Foran, Greene, Hitchcock, Humphreville, Kerr, McCormick, Mitchener, Pratt, Root, Russell of Meigs, Sam- ple, Townsley, Tripp, Tyler, Van Voorhis, Vo- ris, Watson, Weaver, White of Hocking, Wood- bury, Young of Champaign — 28. So the substitute was inserted in the place of the original section. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the adoption of the substitute. Mr. SCRIBNER. The substitute having been inserted, is there any question at this stage of the proceedings upon the adoption ? The PRESIDENT. That is true. The ques- tion of its adoption will come up afterwards. Mr. POND. I move to reconsider the vote just taken, upon which the substitute of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], was agreed to, and upon that I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. ROOT. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], is in favor of it? Mr. POND. I am not. Mr. ROOT. That is a great way to do busi- ness> Mr. CAMPBELL. I suppose the object is to have this finished so that we may proceed to the consideration of the other sections, and that this cannot be re-opened. If we vote down the mo- tion to reconsider it, that finishes it. Mr. COWEN. I move to lay the motion upon the table. Mr. CAMPBELL. Upon that motion, I de- mand the yeas and nays Mr. BURNS. It is not debatable. Mr. CAMPBELL. I think I understand that as well as the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], that it is not a debatable question, and I do not propose to debate it, but it is in order to make an inquiry of the Chair. The gentle- man is probably a good deal on that system himself. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], will proceed to make his inquiry. The gentleman is in order and has a right to make an inquiry. Mr. CAMPBELL. It is this : whether, if the vote to reconsider, made by the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], be voted down, that will not determine the discussion finally ; or, whe- ther, if the motion to lay upon the table pre- vails, it may not, at any time, be taken up when a majority are present, and the whole subject be reopened ? The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state, that the vote, which the gentleman from Mor- gan [Mr. Pond], moves to reconsider, is simply upon the vote to insert and not upon the adop- tion of the substitute, and it would prevent, hereafter, simply a motion to reconsider the vote to insert. Mr. CAMPBELL. Would it not prevent any consideration of this eighteenth section? The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks not. It is simply a motion to reconsider the motion to insert. Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], will withdraw his motion to reconsider the question, we take a vote, ac- cording to the suggestion of the Chair, upon the motion to adopt. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the vote upon which the gentleman demands a reconsideration, was simply upon the vote to insert, and not upon the merits of the question. The question is, therefore, now upon the motion to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. Mr. HOADLY. I desire to ask whether there is any motion to adopt, until the whole Article is submitted for adoption by the Convention ? The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands not. Mr. HOADLY. Whether the separate sec- tions are, by any rule, submitted to a separate vote upon the question of adoption? The PRESIDENT. Such has not been the practice of the Convention. Mr. HOADLY. Then the adoption will be of the whole Article? The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. HOADLY. Then why will not the re- fusal to reconsider be the end of this section ? The PRESIDENT. Because the question to reconsider is a vote to insert and not to adopt. The question to adopt is yet to come. Mr. HOADLY. Did I understand the Chair to say that the question of adoption will be upon the whole Article, and not upon the separate section ? The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me make one inquiry : whether there is any vote to be taken with reference to section eighteen, as a separate and distinct branch of Proposition 190? The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands 1146 THE VETO POWER. [107th Campbell, Cunningham, Root, Pond, Neal. [Friday, that, according to the practice established here- tofore, there is no rule found to regulate the matter. The practice has been under Rule 69 — Mr. CAMPBELL. What I desire to know is, the ruling of the Chair. The PRESIDENT. The Chair intended to state that, under the practice under the Rule sixty-nine, the Convention has taken up the proposition section by section, and, after acting upon each section, the ruling of the Chair was that the Convention should not go back except by common consent, but that by common con- sent the Convention may go back and recon- sider the Article. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Chair state whether it rules that this section is to be finally acted upon as a separate section ? The PRESIDENT. With that understand- ing ; that, by universal consent, it may be taken up. There is no rule regulating the matter; but the former President of the Convention stated it as a rule, and I believe the practice has been since, that, after going over a Proposition section by section, it would not be permitted to go back to any section except by common con- sent. Mr. CAMPBELL. The Chair will allow me a moment. It was by universal consent, the other day, that this section eighteen was taken up out of its order for final disposition. It was taken up to be finally disposed of in advance. If the Chair rules that it has been finally dis- posed of, the question will arise whether it is possible hereafter to take it up again ? The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands, and has already said, that, under the practice established, this section is not susceptible of any further amendment, except by general con- sent. If I am wrong in my impression, I shall be happy to be corrected. I understand that to be the practice established by the Convention. There is no rule regulating it. Mr. CAMPBELL. Then, Mr. President, if the friends of this proposition desire to have it finally disposed of, they will vote down the mo- tion to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table, and then vote down the motion to recon- sider. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I desire to make an inquiry as to the propriety of the principle of disposing of an important proposition like this, before the Convention has had an opportunity to look at it, even. There have been a dozen amendments offered here, and accepted, by the gentleman who proposed the section, none of which the Convention has had the opportunity to examine, and now it is proposed to lock the door, and prevent the Convention from looking at, and examining, and carefully revising, their action in the premises. Mr. ROOT. Is that any inquiry of the Chair ? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Al- len [Mr. Cunningham], is not in order. A mo- tion to lay upon the table is not debatable. The question is upon laying upon the table the motion to reconsider. Mr. POND. If it is in order, I ask leave of the Convention to withdraw my motion to re- consider. The PRESIDENT. It is not in order unless the motion to lay upon the table is first with- drawn. Upon the motion of Mr. Cowen to lay the mo- tion upon the table, the yeas and nays were or- dered, and being taken, resulted — yeas 33, nays 47, as follows: Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Beer, Bosworth, Burns, Cowen, Cunningham, Dorsey, Foran 7 Greene, Herron, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Humph- reville, Hunt, Kerr, McBride, Mitchener, Pease, Philips, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Smith of Highland, Townsley, Tripp, Tyler, Van Voor- his, Voris, Waddle, Woodbury, Young of Cham- paign, President— 33. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Baber, Bannon, Blose, Caldwell, Campbell, Carberv, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, De Steiguer, Doan, Ewing, Freiberg, Godfrey, Gurley, Hale, Hill, Hoadly, Horton, Layton, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Page, Phellis, Pond, Powell, Rickly, Root, Russell of Muskingum, Scofield, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Tulloss, Tuttle, Yoorhes, Watson, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Wilson — 47. So the motion to lay upon the table was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the motion of the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], to reconsider the vote by which the substitute offered by the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Campbell], was inserted in lieu of the orig- inal section eighteen. Mr. NEAL. If this motion prevails, as I un- derstand the rules of this Convention, when the proposition comes up for the adoption of the substitute as an Article of the present Consti- tution, it will be proper for any one who wishes to amend this section, or any other, by moving to refer the same to a Committee of one, with instructions to amend? The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. Mr. NEAL. I make that statement because there seemed to be an impression upon the part of some persons that, if this motion to recon- sider was not carried, then, any amendment to this particular section will be beyond the con- trol of this Convention. The PRESIDENT. It will still be liable to amendment, with instructions. On the motion to reconsider, the yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted — yeas 29, nays 51, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Beer, Bosworth, Burns, Cowen, Cunningham, Dorsey, Foran, Greene, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Humphreville, Hunt, Kerr, McBride, Mitchener, Pratt, Root, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Tripp, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Yoris, Waddle, Weaver, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 29. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Adair, Baber, Bannon, Blose, Cald- well, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, DeSteiguer, Doan, Ewing, Freiberg, God- frey, Gurley, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hoadly, Hor- ton, Layton, McCormick, Miner, Mueller, Mul- len, Neal, Page, Pease, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Rickly, Russell of Muskingum, Sco- field, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Towns- ley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Voorhes, Watson, West, White of Hocking, Wilson — 51. 1147 D ay.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMEN T. February 6, 1874.] Tuttle, Humphreville, Hitchcock, Pond, Hoadly. So the motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The Convention having disposed of section 18, it will now, under Rule sixty-nine, proceed to the consideration of the Proposition, section by section. The Secretary will read the first section. The Secretary read : “Sec. 1. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The PRESIDENT. If there are no objec- tions, the Secretary will proceed to read section 2 . The Secretary read : “Sec. 2. The Senate and House of Representatives shall be electod biennially by the electors in the respec- tive counties or districts on the Tuesday sucoeeding the first Mondav of November. Their term of office shall com- mence on the first of January next thereafter and con- tinue two years,” Mr. TUTTLE. Mr. President, if in order, I had proposed to have that question considered while the Convention was fuller than it was when the question was acted upon, the other day. I refer to the term of office of the mem- bers of the House of Representatives. It is suggested that no proposition is, at this time, in order. I make the inquiry. The PRESIDENT. What is the question of the gentleman? Mr. TUTTLE. Whether it is in order to move to strike out, or amend, the section, so as to provide a term of one year, instead of two years, for members of the House of Represen- tatives ? The PRESIDENT. The Convention has re- fused to adopt the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole. The section is now open for amendment in any way which does not strike out. It is open to amendment by adding, or by any other material addition to the proposition. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. There was a direct vote taken upon striking out section two, as it now stands ; and that vote was decided in the negative, and by our rule that is equivalent to agreeing to the matter. As it now stands, the vote was against striking out, and I suppose, by the rules, the only amendment that can now be made to this section, is by way of addition ; but no portion of the section, as it now stands, can be stricken out and other words be substituted. The PRESIDENT. Only by addition. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I would inquire of the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphreville], whether there was a division called for ? Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. There was. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], propose to offer an amendment? Mr. TUTTLE. No, sir. The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection to the section as read, the Secretary will read section three. The Secretary read : “Sec. 3. Senators and Representatives shall reside in their respective counties or districts one year next pre- ceding their election, unless they shall be absent on the public business of the United States or of this State, and shall continue to reside in their respective districts or counties during their terms of service.” The PRESIDENT. Are there any other amendments to be proposed to this section ? Mr. POND. I move to strike out of section three, the word “ shall” in the first line, down to the words “continue to” in the fourth line. It will then simply read : “Senators and Representatives shall continue to reside in their respective districts or counties during their terms of office,” striking out the words, “shall reside in their respective counties or districts one year next pre- ceding election, unless they shall have been absent on the public business of the United States or of this State.” The PRESIDENT. The motion is to strike out all after the word “shall,” in line one, down to the word “ continue,” in line four. Mr. POND. I can see no good idea in this limitation, or, not in the words proposed to be stricken out, that Representatives and Senators shall have to reside in their respective dis- tricts or counties, one year next preceding their election. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I see no reason why a citizen of the State, who shall move from one county to another, and who shall be deemed a fit person to represent that county in the Legislature of the State, may not be put in- to that position before he shall have resided in that county for one year. He may be the best man they can get for the place. Unless some- body can give some reason for the limitation, I cannot vote for it. Mr. SCRIBNER. I suppose the object of the limitation was to prevent gentlemen from mov- ing from one county to another to offer them- selves as candidates for the General Assembly. Mr. POND. I would like to inquire whether there could be any objection to that ? Mr. SCRIBNER, i think there would. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. If the amendment of the gentleman is adopted, it is not necessary that a man should reside in the district where he is elected. If he moves into a district or a county before his term of office commences, that is sufficient. The county of Cuyahoga can elect a resident of the county of Hamilton to represent it in the General Assembly, and if that gentleman saw fit to accept the office and move into Cuyahoga county on the last day of December next, before his term of office com- mences, he would be eligible to hold that office. I do not believe that the people of the State of Ohio want any such thing. Thi3 is a literal copy of what is in our present Constitution, re- lating to this matter, and I do not know that the people demand any change in that respect. I believe, myself, that a man ought to reside in the county or district where he is elected for any office, for a given length of time ; so that the people may become somewhat acquainted with him — at least long enough that they may know whether he is a suitable person to rep- resent them or not. I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. HOADLY. I shall vote with the delegate from Morgan [Mr. Pond] to strike out; because the clause he proposes to strike out is a part of a section of which I should be glad to erase the whole. I do not know why the people of any county in this State, if they choose to elect a, man who does not live in the county, should not have that privilege. I do not see any such great outrage likely to be perpetrated, or any such danger that we may become liable to, as to I require a constituional provision in the form of this limitation. I know nothing in the history 1148 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [107th Hoadly, Wilson, Humphreville, Tuttle, Root, Ewing. [Friday, of Ohio for many years past, or ever, that calls for a constitutional provision to prevent the great mischief of people electing somebody to represent them who may not live in their coun- ty. They are very little likely to do it — a great deal less likely than they ought to be — in mv humble judgment. I do not believe in the truth of that political philosophy which con- siders territorial representation superior to the representation of brains and public service. If the people of Hamilton county can secure the services of a better man from Butler county to represent them than they find among their own citizens, they ought to thank God for the opportunity to elect him. Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. WILSON. Would it be pleasant to see a gentleman trundling a hoop through the State of Ohio? Mr. HOADLY. We should have but few gentlemen trundling hoops through the State of Ohio with the people to applaud the perform- ance. I respectfully submit that if we could adopt, as a basis of political action, supported by the concurrence of sentiment among the people, that geographical qualifications should be removed — if we could adopt it as a principle of political action in Ohio, that residence in a particular territory be not necessary, we should gain greatly. Why, sir, we all know most val- uable public men in Ohio condemned to exile from the public service, which they desire to take part in, and which thousands of their fel- low-citizens desire them to take part in, because they live in counties or senatorial districts in which the majority is largely against them. The Democracy of the Western Reserve have never been represented in the councils of Ohio ; and yet, there is not a gentleman here who does not know that in the ranks of that Democ- racy are some of the ablest men, the purest men, and the best men in Ohio. And it is just as true, sir, that in the counties of Butler, Mon- roe, Holmes, Crawford and Fairfield, the Re- publican party has never had an opportunity of sending its leaders, its best and ablest men, to any position in public life where they could contribute to the welfare of the State, because of this constitutional provision. Now, I do not know, but I am inclined to think, that this idea of geographical limitation has grown into the public mind, until it has be- come a principle of political action; so that there is not much chance, even if the Constitu- tional disqualification were out of the way, of making the reform which I believe would be effectual by securing the election of non-resi- dent Senators or Representatives. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Will the gentle- man allow me a question ? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I want to know whether the gentleman is in favor of this sys- tem of carpet-bagging ? Mr. HOADLY. I do not consider it a sys- tem of carpet-bagging at all. When the people of Glasgow did themselves the honor of electing Thomas Babington Macaulay member of Par- liament, although he did not live among them; and when the people of Greenwich, day before yesterday, did themselves the honor of electing William E. Gladstone their member of Parliament, the case did not involve carpet- bagging at all. It is the English system. The gentleman desires to prevent the people from having the opportunity of doing what they have the right to do; for it* is a question of popular right I am arguing. The gentleman proposes to put into this Constitution, what was in the last Constitution — a provision that, if the people desire — aye, unanimously desire — to elect a man who does not reside within their borders, they shall not have the privilege. It is simply tying the hands of the people. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. TUTTLE. In the course of a hundred years, how many times, does the gentleman suppose, anybody will be elected out of his own district? Mr. HOADLY. The gentleman has shown the futility of this very Constitutional provision by his question. Lex neminem ad vana cogit. Why does the gentleman ask me to vote into the Constitution a provision to foster a system which he says in a hundred years the Constitu- tion will not operate to assist? It is a mere vain provision, according to his theory. Ac- cording to mine, it is more than vain : it pre- vents the education of the public in the right direction, which is the direction of freedom of public choice, no matter where the candidate may live. And I say that, in some of these strong Republican counties, they would do themselves honor to choose Republicans that do not live in those particular counties, and vice versa. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me one word of explanation ? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. TUTTLE. I did not say that the at- tempt would never be made. I was looking at the mischief that might arise from the presence of political jugglers all over the State. I only suggest that a mere attempt, without any prac- tical result, would always be the end of it. Mr. HOADLY. That may be; but I do not think so. But I do not propose to take up the time of the Convention any further. I simply wished to deliver myself upon a subject upon which I feel pretty strongly. I shall vote with the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], to strike out of this section all I can strike out. If I could strike the whole of it out, I should be greatly pleased. Mr. ROOT. I wish the motion were to strike out the whole section. Mr. EWING. If the gentleman will yield the floor, I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], by stri- king out the whole section. The question was first put upon the motion of the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], which, without a division, was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Fairfield to strike out section three. The President was on the point of putting the question, when the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], was recognized as having the floor. Mr, ROOT. I thought I had manifested a 1149 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPA R TMEN T. February 6, 1874.] Root, Sample. disposition to speak to the question. I concur in all that has been said by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], and go a little further. If you strike out this section, you do not force upon the people of any county the necessity of going out of their limits to select a candidate for member of the General Assembly ; but you take away a restriction. You do not confine them in their choice to their own county. Now, far be it from me to intimate that there is a county in this State that has not a man com- petent, and eminently fit to represent its people in the General Assembly. But, sir, this is an age of progress, an age of reform. With some of the attempts at innovation, I confess that I do not sympathize at all; some others I have a little leaning towards, and it may get to be stronger and more decided ; and some of them I give my whole heart to. Suppose a case where there is in a county a majority of the people who desire minority representation, and sup- pose that, in another county, the county, for instance, represented by our eloquent friend — I will not say venerable, but our middle-aged friend — from Miami [Mr. Dorsey], the majority of the people do not agree with him in senti- ment, and are not in favor of minority repre- sentation. How the fact.stands, I neither know nor care. I only put the case for illustration. Or, take another case : Suppose the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing], when he goes home, finds that his constituents have been robbing the treasury so long that they cannot appreciate his statesmanlike views on the subject of mi- nority representation. And, suppose there is another county — you may have it, if you please, the county of Ottowa, or you may have it, if you please, the county of Carroll — that does appreciate his ability, and does want a first- class man in the Legislature, why should you deny them the right to go out and look among all the statesmen and able men of the State for a man to do what they desire, above all things, to have done? Why forbid them? The prejudice of men in favor of home, in favor of their own neighbors who might be aspiring to these places will always prevent their electing a man living outside of their own county, unless there is some good sound reason, and if there is a good sound reason, why for- bid their doing it? For the life of me, I cannot see why. We have heard cited here, in behalf of those who favored a provision for giving the Governor the veto power, instances of men be- ing so trammeled, so hampered — I think I did not misunderstand the gentleman from Rich- land [Mr. Burns] — by local prejudices that they hardly lelt at liberty to disregard the prejudices of their constituents, no matter how great the doubt they entertained of their being well- grounded. They were thus rather the repre- sentatives of a county and of local questions, rather than of the people at large. Sir, if the people chose, they might very well improve their representation in the General Assembly by dispensing with the services of some of their residents and employing, as their representa- tives fellow-citizens living in other counties. I do not say this with reference to any particular case, but I apply it generally. Now, the in- stances mentioned by the gentleman from Ham- ilton [Mr. Hoadly] are exactly in point. A great many others, indeed, might be cited. Every man, from his own recollection, could cite numerous instances — and I venture to say in many more cases than than the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] seems to suppose — where the people, if they would take men from other counties — men who could not be elected in their own counties — whose gene- ral views were in sympathy with their own, and would be more likely to represent them ably than any one they could find in their own county. Why, sir, just let me ask the members generally, without reference to any locality, or to any particular instances, if the people of this State in the choice of their delegates to this Convention, had been at liberty to pick and choose wherever they pleased, do not gentle- men believe there would have been members here from other counties than those in which they lived ? Mr. SAMPLE. I do not believe so. Mr. ROOT. The gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample] is not a fair judge in this matter. He is a very fair judge in most cases; but, up in the county where he lives, he is so univer- sally beloved and admired that there is no use of talking about anybody, outside, coming into competition with him. But all the counties in this State do not have such eminent public citizens, and citizens so eminent in the public service, as the county of Coshocton. I remember, sir, though it is a good way back, that Martin Van Buren, who never slept a night in Otsego county, and whose residence was in Columbia county, New York, where, perhaps, he could not have been elected, was elected from Otsego county to the Constitutional Convention of 1823. Everybody knows that he was a member of that Convention : few, per- haps, know or care what county he represented ; but he did not represent the county in which he resided. He represented a county in which he never had resided, and which was eighty or ninety miles away from the county in which he lived before the choice. It looks as if we, in this Convention, countenanced and favored county pride, and, indeed, made it absolutely necessary that county pride and county prejudice should be fostered by constitutional provision. I say this is illiberal, and I do not care how many Constitutions it has been put into. An abuse, or a folly, has no more of my respect, because itis antique, than it would have if it were new. Venerable abuses, and venerable follies, deserve, in my estimation, very little veneration; but they are hard to eradicate, and the fight against them has to be begun as early as possible, and to be continued a very long time. There is nothing more favorable to this local prejudice than having our Representatives go to the Gen- eral Assembly, carrying up the narrow views which they get in their own county — a practice which this provision is calculated to foster. I wish it were out. The people will not be com- pelled to select men outside of their own coun- ties; but we wish to give them the right to do so, if they choose. The gentleman from Co- shocton [Mr. Sample] does not believe there is a county in the State that would do it. I need not remind him that there are a good many other counties in the State beside Coshocton. Mr. SAMPLE. I knew it. 1150 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [107th Root, Tuttle, Scofield, Hoadly, Carbery, Miner. [Friday, Mr. ROOT. And every county does not have its Ewing, any more than its Sample. I might bother you a good deal by asking you to look at Erie, hut I do not wish to be personal. Mr. TUTTLE. Erie could furnish men for other counties. Mr. ROOT. She will do as she pleases about it, and I wish her to he left at liberty; if she thinks she can find a better man outside of her own limits, to take him. I want that liberty for my constituents. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him ? Mr. ROOT. It is a misfortune that whenever the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] asks me a question, the President’s hammer is about to come down. As I said before, the gen- tleman must go it on his own hook ! Mr. TUTTLE. I want to explain that the gentleman did not understand me. I did not say that the people in Erie would have elected a representative somewhere else, but that prob- ably some other county would have elected a man from Erie. Mr. ROOT. I do not know how that may be. They could not have had me anywhere else, and I do not think they would have troubled themselves about anybody else — if the gentle- man considers that a fair answer. Mr. SCOFIELD. I hope that the motion will not prevail — and for several reasons. It is an in- novation upon a principle that has been in opera- tion ever since we have had a State — for near- ly three-quarters of a century — and if you de- stroy and break down these county lines in your system of representation, and introduce this carpet-bagging system, you will have in counties in the State of Ohio what the South- ern States now have — indignation upon the part of the minority, that has worked the peo- ple even to a state of rebellion, bloodshed and war. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. SCOFIELD. Certainly. Mr. HOADLY. Do not these carpet-baggers, every one of them, live in the districts which they represent? Mr. SCOFIELD. No, sir ; not in the true sense of that term. They live there, sir, but they are imposters. They live there, as you would have these parties," should this motion prevail, representing people with whom they do not live, as resident citizens — with whom they have no interest in common — they have but a temporary residence among those people, whom they are said to represent. The minority in those districts have even been imposed upon to such an extent, as I said before, it has almost produced rebellion. And so it will be in these counties throughout the State of Ohio. Gentle- men have pointed out no sound reason for this change. There has been no call for it by the people of any county in this State, and we are taking up the time of the Convention at the ex- pense of the people, in seeking to destroy pro- visions here that have stood the test of three- quarters of a century without any complaint. It involves great expense to the people, and they are now crying out throughout the differ- ent counties, “ when, in the name of God, will this Convention get through with its business?” I believe, sir, in letting well enough, alone. This is a provision that has stood the test in our old Constitution without any complaint, and I think it is time to go to work to do something that has some merit in it, and get through with the business of this Convention. Mr. CARBERY. I am opposed to striking out, though not for the same reasons as those which have influenced my friend. I admit, however, that reasons, and some very plausible reasons, have been urged for striking out. One not least attractive to my mind, is that it is the English system to leave the electors at liberty to choose from the nation at large a man of the largest capacity for the purpose of representing them in the public service. I think that is a good reason ; but whether or not it is a reason strong enough to outweigh the old custom in the State, is a question to my mind. And then, again, there is another question : Suppose, for instance, that the party of the ma- jority in Hamilton county have this privilege of going into the adjoining county of Butler for the purpose of getting a representative. Now, sir, is not the inference one that you can- not escape from : that if they go into that coun- ty, they must either select one of the same party feeling in Butler county, and thus, by implica- tion, admit that there is not a man in their own county, of the same political faith as themselves, fit to "represent them; or they must pass over into that county to elect a man of the opposite political faith. Is not that an inevitable deduc- tion from the premises ? I ask of this Conven- tion, frankly, where is the use, even for the purpose of having this attractive feature in our Constitution, which, perhaps, presents the more plausible face to the casual observer — what is the use of striking out a provision of this kind, when we cannot, thereby, in the nature of things, and from the constitution of human nature, effect any reform whatever, as elections are now held? Mr. MINER. If the electors of any county or district will never select a candidate to rep- resent them who does not reside in such county or district, as is claimed, then the restriction is a needless one, and this is sufficient reason for striking it out. I have not much considered the subject; but I fail to see any evils likely to result from leaving any constituency free to choose a Representative from any other part of the State, if they should, at any time, desire to do so. As a general rule, they would select the Representative from among themselves, but ex- ceptions might occur, when they would most honor themselves, as well as subserve their best interests, by departing from the general prac- tice. When this Convention was called, I re- member to have expressed my regret that the people of some other county than that of his residence, where the majority are of opposite politics, had not the power to select Judge Ran- ney a delegate to this Convention. He was in the Convention of 1850-’51 ; was a very able and leading member; has been increasing in experience and in knowledge and wisdom ever since; and no one who knows him can but feel that he would be a great acquisition to this body. I confess, Mr. President, that I like that feature of the English system, that allows the local constituency, when they see fit, to look 1151 DayJ THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 6 , 1874 .] Voris, Miner, West, Hoadly, Ewing, etc. abroad over all England for a Representative in Parliament. What has so distinguished in history the people of the city of Bristol, as electing Edmund Burke to Parliament in 1774 ? Mr. VORIS. I simply want to raise the ques- tion whether there is any limitation in our Constitution that would have prevented the county of Ottawa or Paulding from electing Judge Ranney of Cuyahoga to this body, had he desired to stand as a candidate, and had the people desired him to run ? Mr. MINER. I will not answer positively; but my impression is, the Constitution or the law forbids it. Mr. WEST. He would be required to have resided in the county thirty days. Mr. HOADLY. Will my colleague, [Mr. Miner], allow me to suggest the answer, if he is not prepared to give it ? If the gentleman from Summit, will look at the statute organi- ing this Convention, he will find that members of this Convention are required to have the same qualifications as members of the General Assembly. Mr. MINER. So I supposed the law to be. Mr. WEST. I would suggest to the gentle- man that I think that the Report of the Com- mittee upon Elective Franchise upon the case of Mr. Wells, settled what the law was for this Convention. Mr. HOADLY. The candidate must have resided in the county for thirty days. Mr. MINER. Now, sir, I was reminded of the case of Mr. Burke, representing the city of Bristol especially, because it called forth from him, when he came before them for re-election, the greatest speech ever made by him, or, per- haps, by any other man in ancient or modern times. It seems to me, that gentlemen who adhere to this restriction, have at bottom a feel- ing which I do not participate in, and, there- fore, count myself in that respect, a better Democrat than the best of Democrats who en- tertain that feeling — namely, a fear to trust the people. I am in favor of giving the people the largest liberty upon this subject; and of let- ting them settle the question for themselves. I know that It is a case which will rarely occur ; but there might arise circumstances in a coun- ty or district, which would lead the people to look to another county or to other constituen- cies for their Representative ; and it is a privi- lege which I think they ought to have, and, therefore, I shall vote to strike out the section. The yeas and nays were then demanded. Mr. EWING. I wish to say a word upon this question. As has been stated by the gen- tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Miner], who was just up, the fact that there is no necessity for this section, is a sufficient reason for striking out. It is a limitation on the power of the people; that is all. It ties up their hands, and is admitted to be unnecessary. Mr. CARBERY. Permit me to ask, is not the Constitution that we propose to submit to the people itself a limitation upon the people? Mr. EWING. Of course, the Constitution contains necessary limitations upon the exercise of the power of the majority ; but no limita- tion can be justified, except upon the ground that it is to prevent some evil. But, if the thing provided against may possibly be useful, and can, under no circumstances, be harmful, the limitation is unreasonable, even though the thing provided against is not likely to occur. And that is just this case. The sole argument in favor of retaining this section is that the peo- ple do not want carpet-baggers. I suppose that is so, and that they will not elect carpet-bag- gers, whether this section be left in or stricken out, but it is idle to talk of the striking out of the provision as a thing that will work in favor of the carpet-baggers. If Judge Ran- ney had been elected from some district in the north-west to this Convention, he would have remained a citizen of Cleveland. He would not have pretended to be a citi- zen of such county, but he would have come to this Convention and represented well the people who elected him. Why should not the people of Fairfield county, if they had desired, have had the privilege of electing Judge Ranney to sit in the deliberations of this Convention? The limitation is only useless where it is not mischievous. Gentlemen of the Convention, this is not a trivial question. We are to have, within the term of existence of this amended Constitution, a great many engrossing and thrilling ques- tions, that will come before the Legislature for decision. There will be a contest between the Representatives of the people and private cor- porations, the power of which is growing to be so enormous in the State ; and the people will want the best minds who have studied the sub- ject, no matter in what counties they may live. I hope there are many counties in this State, whose people, upon a question of that character, would send the ablest men in the State to rep- resent their ideas, rather than confine them- selves to the selection of those persons who had not studied the subject, although living in their county. I think it important to give the people the amplest latitude in the selection of their servants. We need not be afraid to trust them. The pride and jealousy of locality, and attach- ment of people to their neighbors, will always lead to the selection of men from counties in which they reside, unless there be some public necessity inducing the people to select an able man abroad ; and whenever they choose to do that, they take a step in the direction of better government ; they take a step which tends to en- courage men, no matter in what locality they may live, to give their attention and study to questions of great public interest, feeling that their talent may be called for and employed by the people of some other county in the State, if their political opinions differ from those of the majority of the people in the county in which they live. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I desire to remind the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing] that some of the physic which he administered to the Convention to-day upon another question, is applicable to this proposition ; and that one of the strings upon which he played against conferring the veto power upon the Governor, was that it was bad policy to abandon an imme- morial custom of the State, unless there was some public demand, or some great public ne- cessity for it. That was a mighty good argu- [107th 1152 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Ewing, Cunningham, Layton, Blose. ment then, and I suggest that it is just as good I an argument now. Mr. EWING. Will the gentleman allow me ; to interrupt him ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will. Mr. EWING. The gentleman certainly mis- understood my statement. I do not at all ad- mit that it is improper for us to make a change in the organic law of the State unless we are driven to it by some great public necessity. What I said was — and I cannot he mistaken about my language — that I objected to the change of an immemorial custom of the State unless there was a public demand or a strong reason for it — not an imperative, driving neces- sity, but a good reason. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I do not see that I misunderstood the gentleman. Substan- tially his position was as I have stated it : there must be some strong reason for abandoning the immemorial custom of the State, some public demand, or some public necessity. Now, where is it? My friend anticipates some thrill- ing scenes in the Legislature. My imagination is not so lively as the imagination of the gentle- man from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing]; for I cannot imagine a contingency in public affairs which the people of the various localities of this State have not the timber to meet; and it is but a poor compliment to this body to say that the several counties do not contain within them citizens of integrity, learning, and ability, and all the necessary qualifications, in sufficient measure to meet any contingency that may occur. This Convention here is an illustration of what county representation is. Now, there may occasionally be a thrilling scene in the House, but I think the local Representatives will be equal to it. It may be, that when the Legislature passes some act, and under the pro- vision which the Convention has adopted to-day, the Governor scolds at them like a fish-woman, it may be that some other gentleman, who can scold back like a fish-woman, should be there to answer him. But as to the thrilling scenes, the gentleman will grow gray before there will be an occasion for the people of one county to go out of their borders to find a person competent to represent them. I submit, Mr. President, that you can scarcely find a locality — no, you cannot find any county in the State — that has not within it men who can better represent the people of that locality than the brightest man you can find in any other part of the State. This proposition, to some extent, lets out the business of legislation by contract, and if you are going to do that, do not confine us to the limits of the State ; for I doubt not that, if we would be right industrious, we might find, outside of this State, some man of even more brilliant parts than may be found in some given locality in Ohio. If you abandon local representation at all, follow it out, and let the people go where they may — let them range from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, to se- lect their Representatives. Mr. LAYTON. As a Representative of a Democratic county, my Democracy dating back a little farther than 1866, 1 am opposed to strik- ing out this section, which is intended to pre- vent carpet-bagging. I will say to the gentle- man from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing], that 1 1 [Friday, | presume the Democrats of the Northwest are | able to take care of themselves ; and I presume | that there is not a man of them who very par- ticularly desires that Judge Ranney, or General Ewing, or any other so-called great man should represent them in this Convention. And, it may be, that the personal popularity of the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Ewing], which elected him in his own county would not have been so great in some of the counties of the Northwest, upon the Democratic platform. The proposed amendment is anti-Democratic in its spirit, not in the party sense, but in the true meaning of the word Democratic. The people desire to have persons with whom they are acquainted, and who are acquainted with them ; who know their wants, their disposition, and their means and manners of doing business, to represent them in the legislative halls. They do not ask anything of this kind, and this is the first hint I have heard that this matter would be attempted to be foisted upon this Convention, and placed as a provision in the Constitution. A great deal of our legislation, sir, is local legislation, and that local legislation needs the services of persons who are acquaint- ed with the wants of the community which they represent. We might, with the same propriety, say that we could go to Posey county, Indiana, to get a man to elect as Governor of the State of Ohio, as that Auglaize county could go to Ashtabula and elect some person from that county to represent them in the legislative hall. Why, sir, even the Lord’s prayer is against this amendment, for it says “ Lead us not into temptation,” and we should not at- tempt to lead the people into temptation to form rings of carpet-baggers in different parts of the State. I know but few men who would support this measure; and I am astonished that men of such good sense and judgment should advocate any such proposition. I hope it will be voted down. Mr. BLOSE. And I am surprised that this innovation should now be attempted to be made in an old fundamental law of the State of Ohio, that has stood for twenty years. None of the people of my county ask for this innovation. For myself, I am apt to be looking at things, when first brought forward, in their most un- attractive shape — I see them on their worst side — and this proposition comes to me, as some others have come, in. that respect. I am afraid that the best qualifications that could be gotten for a representative, who lives outside of the county which elects him, would be the qualifica- tions of which Governor Bullock was possessed. He went down to old Georgia, with his quali- fications in his pocket, and when he came back he did not only have what he took in his pock- et, but he had Georgia there, too. That is just my idea, in a few words, with reference to this matter. But then, in addition to that, it may bring me into trouble. It is an innovation. The people have not asked me to support it. I want to keep out of hot water if I can. I live about a mile from the north boundary line of my county. Just north of me is my native county, the county of Champaign, which my honorable friend, General Young, represents. Now, suppose that the people of that gentle- I man’s county should forget that General Young Day.] February 6 , 1874 .] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Blose, Cowen, West, Horton, Wilson. 1153 lived there, and should come down and ask me to represent them in the Legislature. That would he all right, on the theory now put for- ward. But suppose my own county wanted me — wouldn’t I be in hot water? How could I settle that matter? [Laughter]. This might engender a quarrel between the counties, the result of which might be that I would fail to get that title of Hon. at all. Oh, no! gentlemen, you can’t fool me that way. Mr. COWEN. The yeas and nays have been demanded upon this motion to strike out; and earnest and able arguments have been made in favor of the motion. I should like to say a few words upon the question. I trust that the Con- vention will at least be consistent with itself in its action, and try to have something like har- mony in this Constitution, whatever small er- rors may creep into it. I recollect, very well, that when this Convention, a few weeks ago, was discussing the substitute otfered to the eighth section of the J udicial Article, by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], a motion was made to so amend that substitute, as to pro- hibit the people of this State from voting for anybody for common pleas judge, who did not reside within a certain small territory. The amendment was to incorporate two words into that section — “residing therein” — and if I recollect aright, every member of this Conven- tion supported that amendment, without one solitary exception. It was incorporated by unanimous consent. There were differences of opinion among members, as to how large the held of choice should be ; but upon the single, isolated proposition, that the people ought not to be permitted to vote for anybody for judge who did not live in their own particular district, whatever the size of that district might be, the Convention were unanimous. Mr. WEST. Did I consent? Mr. CO WEN. My present impression is that it was accepted by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West]. If not, it was certainly adopted unani- mously, without a dissenting voice. Mr. WEST. I recollect that I spoke about it. I do not remember that I voted for it. Mr. COWEN. It occurred to me that there ought to be an enlargement of the held of choice for judges. But it strikes me that there are proprieties and reasons which should ope- rate upon us in requiring members of a legisla- tive body to live within certain localities, that reach further and ought tc have greater weight in inhuencing our judgment than those which would apply in the selection of judges. There is a propriety in having them so situated that they can have means and opportunities of acquiring the local knowledge and ac- quaintance necessary to enable them to represent a particular portion of the State. I am wholly unable to see any good reason in the arguments that have been urged upon us, for considering this provision as one of the very few things in our old Constitution which it is proposed to leave untouched, that ought to be stricken out. Mr. HORTON. The gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Cowen], in speaking of the fact that this Convention had inserted a provision like this, in reference to the judges, doubtless overlooked y. h-75 the fact that there is a difference in the class of officers. Now, we must all recollect that it is necessary that the judge should live within his district; because it is necessary that he should be within easy reach of the men who have busi- ness to transact with him. There is a most ex- cellent reason why it should be required that the judge should live within the district for which he was elected ; but I can conceive of no such reason that would apply to the case of a Representative. Mr. COWEN. I should like to make the in- quiry, why should not the people of another district be permitted to elect Judge Ranney judge of the court of common pleas, if they want to ? Mr. HORTON. Because every man residing in that district has a right to have the means of justice brought home to his own door; so that the judge shall be within easy reach of him when he has a matter of business to transact in the court, or at chambers, or anywhere else. But, sir, I am in favor of this amendment, be- cause I am in favor of giving to the people the broadest and most extended liberty, with just as few restrictions upon their rights as it is possible to get along with. I have heard no reason given why, if the people of one county desire unanimously to be represented in the General Assemby by some man who did not happen to live among them, they should not be allowed to do it. I believe in the people in the broadest and most Democratic sense of the word ; and when no good reason can be given why this restriction should be placed upon their rights, I can see no good reason for putting it into the Constitution. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], has stated that it will never operate, and that it will not happen once in a hundred years, that the people will elect a man who does not live in their own county. If that be true, it certainly is a satisfactory reason why no such useless provision should be put into the Constitution. I do most earnestly hope that this Convention will rise to the level of ap- preciating the importance of this question, and confer upon the people of any county in the State, the right to be represented by any citizen of the State of Ohio, that they may desire to select. Mr. WILSON. I do not know but that I fully appreciate the importance of this question. It seems to me that it is one of vast importance — of more importance than we may be aware of at the first blush. This system of electing a Rep- resentative of the people, without regard to res- idence, from any part of the State, is a new thing to me, at least. We have what we call a Representative Republic. That is the nature of our government. Our fathers, in their wisdom, saw fit, for the purpose of apportioning repre- sentation, to divide this Republic into counties, and they provided that each county should have one Representative, with additional Represen- tatives in proportion to the population. For the purpose of constituting a body of Senators, they divided the State into districts, and provided that a Senator should be elected from each district. The proposition, now, is to elect Representatives promiscuously, wherever the people desire to select them from. This is not in accordance with our system of government. The idea of 1154 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [107th W ilson, Hoadly, W est. [ Friday, government in our country has seemed to me to be, that each locality should be specially repre- sented. Each county should send a Representa- tive from amongst its own citizens, for the rea- son that a person living there is presumed to understand the wants and the interests of that particular portion of the community. Each person representating a Senatorial district is required to live in that district, for the same reason ; and now it is proposed that Mahoning county, for instance, may choose her Represen- tative from Hamilton county. Why, what does a citizen of Hamilton county know, except from information, about the interests and the wants of the citizens of Mahoning county? Nothing at all. The original theory of the government of the people was, that all the people should assem- ble together and pass their own laws ; but, as it is inconvenient to do that, each locality sends a Representative. A man elected by the citizens of Mahoning county, and re- siding in Cincinnati, could not be said to be the Representative of the citizens of Mahoning county. When he should arise in his place in the General Assembly, how would he be addressed by the speaker ? “The gentle- man from Cincinnati representing Mahoning county!” It strikes me that would be very mortifying to the citizens of Mahoning county. Mahoning county would have one Representa- tive, and Hamilton county would have two, in the same person, because, if a citizen from Hamilton county, and living in that county, be elected by the citizens of Mahoning county, he certainly would not turn a deaf ear to the cit- izens of Hamilton county ; he would represent them, also, becamse he lives there. For one, I would not prefer to transfer all my political rights into hands that were not quite safe, es- pecially when some question might arise where the interests of Mahoning county and Hamil- ton county should conflict. Why, Mr. Presi- dent, it saps the entire foundation of our Re- public, and our theory of government. The idea of our Government is, that the interests of each locality shall be represented — not merely great principles, because those principles spring from the heart of humanity — but the interests of each locality shall be represented. But this idea that we must have high-blooded men to form our government has got to be quite popu- lar in this country, as well as in England. I hope we shall not pattern after that aristocratic idea which centralizes the most powerful tyr- anny over the British Isles. Let us diffuse leg- islative power. When a man is elected to rep- resent Mahoning county, or Hamilton county, while he represents the interests of his particu- lar locality, he is no less the Representative of the entire State. If it be said that we want such a man as Judge Ranney to represent us in Mahoning county, or in Fairfield county, I can tell gentlemen that great talent is always blended with modesty, and that Judge Ran- ney is too modest a man, and too much of a gentleman to assume any such range, and it is no compliment to him to ask him or even indicate that he would be willing to accept the position of Representative of any other county than his own. I hope that this proposition will not find any place in this Constitution, unless we adopt the further pro- vision that if Representatives may be chosen promiscuously throughout the State, the entire State shall vote for their election ; so that they shall be the Representatives of the State. A man chosen by Mahoning county, from Cuya- hoga county, Gould not be said to be the Rep- resentative of the people of Mahoning county. How could he be said to be their Representative ? He is their chosen spokesman, but how is he their agent? He is not from Mahoning county, he does not speak for their interests, he is not of them, he is not from among them. Why, the result would be, the very moment you adopt this principle, you are on the high road to an aristocracy. [Laughter.] Gentlemen laugh; but let me tell you that when once you strike down the principle of diffusing representation among the different localities, and adopt the plan of electing high-blooded gentlemen, they would, for convenience, move to the capital, and in a few years you would have local Repre- sentatives all in the city of Columbus. The people would not care to trouble themselves in their different counties and in the senatorial dis- tricts, but they would select out Bourbons, send them up, and let them reside at Columbus; and thus free the people from this terrible care of sending up Representatives, and release them- selves from the great troubles of government, compartively. We should have our Representa- tive from Mahoning at Columbus ; the citizens of Cuyahoga would have their standing Represent- ative at Columbus; little Meigs would have her standing Representative there, and how conve- nient it would be! What a splendid, high- blooded government we should have there at the capital, all representing different localities that they knew nothing about. That would be centralizing power with a vengeance, and we should have a high-blooded government, which is next thing to a monarchy. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate from Ma- honing [Mr. Wilson] tell me whether the peo- ple of Mahoning have not got a Bourbon now ? Mr. WILSON. Yes; but he does not reside at Columbus. If he had a dead sure thing on the citizens of Mahoning — and he does not know but that he has — he could go to Colum- bus. Mr. HOADLY. Allow me to ask another question. Is the fact that you have such a dead sure thing the reason why you oppose this change? Mr. WILSON. Although I am personally so popular, Mr. President, yet 1 have a high re- gard for the wants of the people, and a great respect for the people of my county. But suppose I had a sure thing on them, and no one could ever beat me for Representative or anything else, I might just as well go and live at Columbus. It would save mileage, and I should be cut off from the necessity of getting a pass. I should be one of your high-blooded fellows, living at Columbus in grand style, at the people’s expense. The next thing to be done would be to have a Governor elected for life, make a little crown for him, and you have the thing completed. Mr. WEST. What would you do with the Constitution of the United States in the mean- time? Mr. WILSON. That is passing the same Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. H55 February 6, 1874.J Wilson, Blose, West, Powell, Tyler. way that we are going. They are centralizing the government. Carpet baggers from New York represent Georgia and Louisiana, so that the member from Georgia is spoken of as “ the gentleman from New York representing Geor- gia.” And that is just the way it is going here if we don’t scotch it. Mr. BLOSE. In reference to the Constitu- tion of the United States, I ask the gentleman from Mahoning [Mr. Wilson] whether that has been unrolled as yet, that he knows of? Mr. WILSON. I am not aware that it has been for several years. I am opposed to this entire scheme. It breaks up the long-standing practice of the people. It strikes down their theory of government. The whole theory of a representative government, as I understand it, is this : that the homes and firesides of the people shall be represented, and that their agents shall come from their homes, knowing the wants of the people — and while they rep- resent these particular localities, they are no less the Representatives of the entire interests of the State. The yeas and nays were then ordered, taken, and resulted — yeas 13, nays 59, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Baber, Bannon, Ewing, Foran, Hoad- ly, Horton, Miner, Mueller, Neal, Pond, Pow- ell, Root, President — 13. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Beer, Blose, Bos- worth, Burns, Caldwell, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cowen, Cunning- ham, De Steiguer, Doan, Godfrey, Greene, Gur- ley, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Humph reville, Kerr, Layton, McBride, McCor- mick, Miller, Mitchener, Mullen, Page, Pease, Philips, Pratt, Rickly, Russell of Meigs, Sam- ple, Scofield, Scribner, Shultz, Smith of High- land, Thompson, Townsend, Townsley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Yoorhis, Yoorhes, Yoris, Waddle, Watson, Weaver, White of Hocking, Wilson, Woodbury, Young of Champaign — 59. So the motion to strike out was not agreed to. Mr. WEST asked and obtained leave to be excused from voting, having paired off with Mr. Hunt. Mr. POWELL. I wish to submit an amend- ment to the Article before the Convention, for the purpose of having it printed with that of- fered by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock]. The Secretary read : Mr. Powell offers the following amendment to section 16 of Article 2 of the present Constitution : “No law shall go into effect earlier than ninety days after the termination of the session of the Legislature at which it was enacted, unless by a subsequent vote of two- thirds of each House some earlier day may be specified. No law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pending at the time of the passage thereof.” No objections were offered, and the amend- ment was ordered to be printed. On motion of Mr. TYLER, The Convention, (at 5:45 p. m.) adjourned. 1156 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Wilson, Clark of J., Humphreville, Baber. [Saturday, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH DAY OF THE CONTENTION. FORTY-SIXTH DAY OF THE ADJOURNED SESSION. HALF- PAST NINE O’CLOCK A. M. The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- journment: the President in the Chair. Prayer by Rev. Sam’l W. Clark, a delegate in the Convention. The Roll was called, and 72 members answered to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. Alexander was excused for absence yes- terday, and granted leave of absence for an in- definite length of time. Mr. Gardner was excused for absence on yesterday, and granted leave for to-dajr. Leave of absence was granted to Mr. Tripp, until Tuesday next; to Mr. Hoadly for to- day; and to Messrs. Bannon, Gurley and O’Connor, for an indefinite length of time. Mr. Young, of Noble, was excused for past absence, and granted leave for an indefinite length of time. The Journal was read and approved. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Enos Heacock, and thirty-six other citizens of Go- shen, Mahoning county, protesting against such amendments as are sought to be engrafted upon the Constitution by the incorporation of certain religious opinions therein. Which was referred to the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. Mr. CLARK, of Jefferson, presented the pe- tition of John Sharp, and 552 other citizens of Jefferson and Columbiana counties, praying that such religious acknowledgments may be placed in the Constitution of the State as will indicate that this is a Christian Common- wealth. Which was referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. THE ORDER OF THE DAY. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I move that the Convention now proceed to the consideration of Proposition No. 190. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. Proposition No. 190 be- ing now before the Convention, the Secretary will proceed to read section four. The Secretary read : Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the au- thority of this State, shall be eligible to, or have a seat Saturday, February 7, 1874. in, the General Assembly; but this provision shall not extend to township officers, justices of the peace, nota- ries public, or officers of the militia. Mr. BABER. There was an amendment to this section, and in order to make it conform to the old Constitution, I propose an amendment which the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], intended to offer, but I see that he is not in his seat, and I move . I see that I have got the wrong amendment. 1 will state my amendment verbally, and will then reduce it to writing. It is in the fourth section, after the words “eligible to,” insert the words “be chosen;” so that it will read, “eligible to be chosen to the Legislature.” The object of the amendment is this: tore- move doubt. I will state that the language of the old Constitution, twenty-sixth section, as anybody will find by examining, says, that a person shall not “ be eligible as a candidate for, or have a seat in the General Assembly.” In that shape the proposition passed, origin- ally, but went, afterwards, to the Committee on Revision, and for the sake of euphony, the words “ candidate for” were dropped, and by a deci- sion, the language of the old Constitution was held not as intending to prevent a man from holding one of these offices, or to prohibit him from being a candidate. In other words, a man who was sheriff, as in the case in Clinton county — the celebrated test case in the election of Chase, United States Senator — the member elect was a sheriff, and did not resign until after the election, and it was held that he was not eligible, and the election was sent back to the people. A question was raised again, at the session of 1870, before the Legislature, with re- gard to the case in Scioto county, of Mr. Glover, a United States register in bankruptcy, which was an exactly similar case, and the House of Representatives held, although I doubted the decision at the time, that the dropping of these words “candidate for” changed the rule of the old Constitution upon this subject. A great many lawyers doubted whether that decision was right. I do not believe it was intended to make a change in the Constitution in this res- pect. There are two evils to be remedied, that is, being eligible to the seat, which relates back to the date of the election, and having a seat in the Legislature. I desire the language to be put back just where it was under the old Con- stitution, in order to carry out the intent and remove the doubt existing in reference to the original construction. Therefore, I hope it will be adopted. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1157 Pond, Baber, Tuttle, Neal. Day.] February 7, 1874.] The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Baber], moves to amend as fol- lows : In line three, after the words “eligible to,” insert the words “be chosen,” so that it will read, “shall be eligible to be chosen.” Mr. POND. It appears to me that it will be unnecessary to insert those words here. The word “eligible” has, in our language, as clearly defined a meaning, as can be. It means “capable of being elected to.” “ Eligible to,” then means “capable of being elected to, or chosen.” It means all that the other does. Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman yield a moment? Mr. POND. Certainly. Mr. BABER. I know that is the opinion of my honorable friend, the Attorney General, and was his opinion at the time that this Glover case was before the Legislature ; but the Legis- lature held otherwise, at that time ; which deci- sion, I think, was erroneous. I agree with the gentleman on this point ; but wish to clear that point with regard to the change, and insert language upon which there has been judicial decision and legislative action. The language of the old Constitution contained the words “candidate for,” but they were dropped by the Committee on Revision, and I merely want to put these words in to meet that point. The Legislature did not all think it necessary. I have the protest of fifty-two members, pre- sented to the House of Representatives — the gentleman is familiar with it — dated April 13th, 1870, House Journal, p. 825 : wherein there is an argument, just exactly the same as the gen- tleman’s, protesting against that construction; but the Legislature, having made that construc- tion, and having decided that it was necessary, I think that we had better remove all doubt. Mr. POND. Under the old Constitution, the Legislature thought that those words “candi- date for” meant nothing, and, consequently, they were, very wisely, stricken out by the fra- mers of the Constitution of 1851. The words “eligible to” appear to me to be as clear and definite as it is possible to be in the English language. The word “eligible” is taken from an old Latin word, which means just what it now seeks to express — “capable of being elec- ted.” A person who is eligible, is a person capable of being elected; capable of being voted for. If, then, he is incapable of being voted for, or elected, he cannot be elected; can- not hold a seat. It appears to me, that if you put the words “be chosen” after the words “eligible to,” you have got a tautology that is unnecessary, and disfigures the Constitution. I agree with my friend from Franklin [Mr. Baber], that they did refuse a seat to Mr. New- man, perhaps, on that construction ; but there is no individual here, who can read the English language, but knows that it would not warrant any such construction ; no man but knows that “eligible” means “capable of being elected to,” and then, if you insert, right after that, the words “be chosen,” you would have “capable of being elected to be chosen,” which, it ap- pears to me, would be language that ought not to be in the organic law. I appreciate the mo- tive of my friend from Franklin [Mr. Baber], in introducing it; but, at the same time, I think that we can avoid the use of this double term, just as easily as they did what was illogi- cal, as I think they did then, by leaving this as it stands now. Mr. TUTTLE. I wish to ask that the amend- ment might be read. I do not think that I ex- actly understood what it was. The Secretary read : After the word “to”, in the third line, insert the words “be chosen”, so that it will read: “No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this State, shall be eligible to be chosen to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly,” &c. Mr. TUTTLE. It seems to me to be agreed by both gentlemen who have jusfe spoken, and likely by others, that the true policy is, that there shall be no person chosen to the seat who is in the condition described in the section. The expression suggested by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Baber] — Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] give way one moment? Mr. TUTTLE. Certainly. Mr. BABER. I will suggest that, in order to remove all doubt, I will move to strike out the word “elig'ble,” and substitute “ elected.” Mr. TUTTLE. That is exactly what I was going to suggest: whether that would not be better. Mr. BABER. I think so. It has been sug- gested to me by gentlemen to substitute the word ^ olGctcd#^ The PRESIDENT. The question will be first upon inserting the word “chosen” — does the gentleman withdraw that? Mr. BABER. I withdraw that. The PRESIDENT. Has the gentleman leave to withdraw his amendment? Leave was granted. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Baber] moves to strike out the word “ eligible,” and insert “ elected,” so that it will read : “ Shall not be elected to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly.” Mr. NEAL. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. Upon yesterday, I voted with the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Baber] — with a very small minority of this Convention, it is true, but a very respectable one — to give the people of any county the right to select their can- didates from whatever part or section of the State they may choose, and I do not propose now, by any vote of mine, to be inconsistent with the vote I so gave on yesterday. What does this do ? Why, it is to fetter the people in their right to choose whom they please to represent them in the General Assembly. It is inconsistent with Democratic government. Let me give an illus- tration : Under the present Constitution, a man who is elected to, and holds the office of, Prose- cuting Attorney, but who goes out of office on the 1st of January, can be elected at the Octo- ber election prior, and be eligible to a seat in the General Assembly, as has been decided over and over again. If we make this change, he would be ineligible. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow a question ? Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. Mr. TUTTLE. What does the gentleman conceive the real meaning of the language as it now stands, to be ? Mr. NEAL. Eligible to ? 1158 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Tuttle, Neal, Root, Scribner, Burns, Young of C., Powell. [Saturday, Mr. TUTTLE. Yes, sir. Mr. NEAL. I conceive that if the disability provided for in this section, be removed at any time before he is required to assume the duties devolved upon him, by virtue of his election to the General Assembly, renders him eligible. Such is also the case with any other county of- fice, the term of which expires before the in- cumbent is called upon to take his oath of office as member of the General Assembly, he is, un- der this provision, eligible to that office ; but if you make this change, if the people of his county or district want him to represent them in the General Assembly, he will be compelled to resign his office the day before election, in or- der to make himself eligible as a candidate for the General Assembly. What is the result? Simply this : Where a man is holding some county office, he will, the day before election, resign, and will forward his resignation to the Governor by mail. After the election is over, if he is defeated, he will telegraph to the Gover- nor that he withdraws his resignation. Thus it will end, and you will have accomplished noth- ing but attempting to deny to the people the right to have whom they w T ish, to represent them. The provision, as it stands in the present Con- stitution, is restrictive enough, and I trust the Convention will not make more stringent this provision. The yeas and nays were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 19, nays 50, as follows: Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Baber, Beer, Bishop, Cook, Cunning- ham, De Steiguer, Kerr, Pond, Root, Scribner, Thompson, Townsley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Yoorhes, Yoris, White of Hocking, Young of Cham- paign, President — 19. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Bosworth, Burns, Camp- bell Carbery, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Coats, Doan, Ewing, Foran, Greene, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hitchcock, Horton, Ho«tet- ter, Humphreville, Layton, McBride, McCor- mick, Miller, Miner, Mitchener, Mueller, Mul- len, Neal, Page, Phellis, Philips, Powell, Pratt, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskin- gum, Sample, Scofield, Shultz, Smith of High- land, Smith of Shelby, Townsend, Tyler, Yan- Voorhis, Waddle, Watson, Weaver, West, Wil- son, Woodbury — 50. So the motion to strike out and insert, was not agreed to. Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. I move to strike out the whole section, and insert the fol- lowing : The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Champaign moves to strike out section four, and insert as a substitute, what the Secretary will now read. The Secretary read : “Sec. 4. No person holding office under authority of theUDited States, or any lucrtive office under theauthority this State, not including as such, township officers, jus- tices of the peace, notaries public, or officers of the mili- tia, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly, nor shall any person holding or interested in any government contract, under the authority of this State, be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General As- sembly.” Mr. ROOT. What is that? A substitute, or the section itself? The PRESIDENT. A substitute for the en- tire section. Mr. ROOT. Has the Secretary read the sec- tion or the substitute? The PRESIDENT. The substitute. Mr. ROOT. I wish he might read the sec- tion. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the section. The Secretary read as follows : Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the au- thority of this State, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly; but this provision shall not ex- tend to township officers, justices of the peace, notaries public, or officers of the militia. Mr. SCRIBNER. I will send up to be read for information, a substitute for the section, that the Convention may have both substitutes before them. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Lu- cas [Mr. Scribner], sends up to be read, for in- formation, the following substitute which he will offer hereafter, and which the Secretary will read. The Secretary read as follows : “Sec. 4. No person holding office under the autority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the au- thority of this State, or interested in any contract or claim involving an appropriation from the>tate treasury, or to which the State is a party, shall be eligible to, or hold a seat in, the General Assembly; but the term “lu- crative office,” in this section, shall not beheld to include ju'tices of the peace, notaries public, township officers, or officers of the militia.” Mr. BURNS. I would like to inquire Tvheth- er the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, printed in italics here, was disagreed to? The PRESIDENT. It was disagreed to. Mr. BURNS. There is a difference of opin- ion among members ; some think it -was and some think it was not. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young]. Mr. YOUNG. The words in italics in section four, as reported, were stricken out, because, I apprehend, they were not in their proper place. As they stood in the section, they were out of place, and it was in contemplation of that, that I drew the substitute I now offer, so as to put them in their proper place. It would then be simple, plain and distinct, and no dispute about it. The substitute offered by me is the section as it stood when the words were stricken out, with the words stricken out, inserted in proper form, at the end of the section. Mr. POWELL. I rise principally upon the suggestion of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], in having his proposition offered to be read, and not as an amendment now. I ask the President if the original section is not to be considered as original matter, and that the amendment of the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young], is a proposition to amend, and the proposition of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], may be received as an amend- ment to an amendment. Now, as I think, one rule (my eyes are so poor, I cannot hunt them up) is, that this proposed substitute may be re- ceived as an original one. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], is right. The provis- ion is a substitute for the entire section, and not for a part of the section. Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 7, 1874.] Powell, West, Burns, Humphreville, Neal, etc. 1159 Mr. POWELL. I would ask the Chair, is not that an entirely original proposition, and is not the amendment of the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young], the first amendment, and that of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], an amendment to the amendment? The PRESIDENT. They are, each of them, offered as a substitute for one thing, not one for the other. A division of the question was called for. The PRESIDENT. The question will first be on striking out. The yeas and nays were demanded. Mr. WEST. Did I understand the Chair to say that the amendment offered by the Com- mittee of the Whole was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the Committee of the Whole was not agreed to. Mr. WEST. I certainly then shall favor striking out and inserting the proposition of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. As it now stands, I prefer it to that of the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young], Though they are very nearly alike, that of the gentleman from Lucas extends over a little more ground. It excludes holders of claims from payment which would require the appropriation of money and voting upon appropriation bills. I do not believe that the gentleman who holds a claim, or interested in a claim which he is prosecuting against the State, of a good many hundreds or thousands of dollars, ought to be the person to vote upon that claim — to vote an appropriation. I have been in the General As- sembly, when as high as $90,000 were voted out of the treasury by men who put the money in their pockets ; and I did not think it looked very well when they had done so. It is true it was not upon any contract of the State, but a claim upon the adjustment of a matter not necessary to speak of here. But it was a good deal of money to be voted out of the State treasury, and into the pockets of men who voted it. There ought to be some provision to stop such things. Mr. BURNS. I do not rise to dispute the ruling of the Chair, because my memory does not serve me, but to inquire whether the Chair has examined the Journal to know whether he is correct or not ? The PRESIDENT. I have inquired. The Journal shows it did not prevail. Mr. BURNS. Some are of a different opinion. If so, I shall vote to strike out this section. I do not like it in its present form. Mr. HUMPREYILLE. I think I can inform the gentleman. The Chair is right. That amendment was not agreed to, not because members did not agree to the principle involved in the amendment, but because it was out of place. It made the section of doubtful con- struction, and it was found advisable in con- sidering the section, that that amendment should not be there, but should be added at the end of the section. I believe it was a pretty general expression of opinion that an amendment ought to be in the section in some shape, but not in the form proposed by the Committee of the Whole. 1 have a distinct recollection it was disagreed to, because I have tried to keep pace with the progress of this discussion. Mr. BURNS, I do not call it in question. I did not remember whether it was or not. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I distinctly remem- ber that it was not concurred in ; and I remember the principal reason assigned was, that it was out of place. Mr. NEAL. I would like to inquire whether or not a contractor building a bridge in a county or township, or building a chimney of an in- firmary, or doing any work of that character under contract, whether he would be ineligible under this amendment? It seems to me if we are to have% provision of that kind, it should be expressed in such a clear and concise way, that it will be confined to contracts in which the State is directly interested. Mr. YOUNG. That is precisely my intention and understanding of it. Mr. NEAL. That is not what might be un- derstood as the meaning of it. Mr. YOUNG. Have it read. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the substitute offered by the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young]. The Secretary read : “Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this State, not including township officers, justices of the peace, notaries public, or officers of the militia, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly ; nor shall any person holding or interested in any government contract, under the authority ot this State, he eligible to, or have a seat in, the General As- sembly.” Mr. HALE. Will the Secretary now read the substitute offered by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. The Secretary read : “Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this State, or interested in any contx*act or claim involving an appropriation from the State treasury, or to which the State is a party, shall be eligible to, or hold a seat in, the General Assembly; but the term lu- crative office in this section shall not be held to include justices of the peace, notaries public, township officers, or officers of militia.” Mr. HALE. I submit that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], has not the objections mentioned by the gentleman from Lawrence [Mr. Neal]. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon striking out section 4. Mr. TUTTLE. I wish to submit for the con- sideration of members whether the proposed substitute is not too extensive. Conceiving that the term “ eligible,” may bear the con- struction properly given to it by the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond] making it equivalent to the words, incapable to be “ chosen to,” or “ elected to,” so that by the clause, as it now stands, or rather, as the substitute now stands, it would make a person absolutely incapable of being chosen, should he have any such contract, or be interested in any such contract, or appro- priation. Now, it seems to me that a provision so extensive as that might, many times, work mischief. Nothing is said, and, of course, no- thing can be intelligently said about the extent of that interest, or the nature of that interest, or the manner in which that interest shall arise ; and it seems to me, it might happen in a great many cases that a man might be elected to that office without even knowing himself, or at least, without himself recurring to the fact 1160 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [ 108 th Tuttle, Humphreville, Powell, Pond, Cunningham, etc. [Saturday, that he had any such interest. Much more might the people be ignorant of the existence of any such interest or contract. And yet, it might be in reality very immaterial to his elec- tion or to his capacity to serve the public well, provided he should be disposed to acquit him- self of that interest as soon as it was discovered by him. Now, it appears to me, that every good purpose of a provision of this kind would be attained by making him simply incapable of holding a seat, without at all affecting his right to be elected to office on that account. And the difference, practically, might be ^pry great; because, before he came to hold his seat, he might discover the existing incompetency and acquit himself of it. In that case, I do not be- lieve any mischief would result from allowing him then to retain his seat, at least, no such great mischief as might result from excluding him on account of any interest that would come within this exclusion ; any interest that might be within the fair meaning of this amendment; any interest in a contract of the government; and I, therefore, hope the substi- tute will not be adopted in that form. And for the purpose of taking the sense of the House up- on that subject, I propose to amend the present section by adding at the end of it these words : “ Nor shall any person holding or interested in any contract with the State hold any seat in the General Assembly.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment. The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is up- on the original motion to strike out and insert. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I do not believe a quorum voted on the amendment. I think it the best amendment offered yet and ought to be adopted. Mr. POWELL. I ask that the vote be taken by division. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the the amendment, upon which a division is asked. Mr. POND. I do not understand the con- struction of the language very well. If I am correct, it is hardly grammatical — “ holding or interested in.” The Secretary read : “Nor shall any person holding or interested in any con- tract with the State hold a seat in the General As- sembly.” Mr. POND. I desire, if this is to be voted on again, to have added after the word “contract” Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me? I desire to say that the amendment was drawn very hastily; and, if the gentleman will suggest anything that will accomplish the pur- pose I have sought, I will very gladly let it take the place of my amendment. Mr. WEST. After the word “with,” insert “or money claim against.” “Interest in any contract with, or money claim against.” Mr. TUTTLE. If there is no objection to that, I am willing to accept the amendment. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I presume that that The PRESIDENT. One moment. Will the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] repeat his amendment? Mr. WEST. After the word “with,” or “claim against.” Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. President Mr. POWELL. Will the gentleman permit me a moment? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Certainly. Mr. POWELL. I think that the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] used the word “money” there. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is what I meant to indicate. A MEMBER. No, no; he left it out. Mr. POND. I move to strike out the words “holding or,” and then read “any person in- t6F6St6d ^ Mr. TUTTLE. I have no objection to that. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I would' like to inquire whether there is any danger of excluding members of the Convention under the amend- ment proposed? [Laughter], The PRESIDENT. The amendment now reads : “Nor shall any person interested in any contract with, or claim against, the State, hold any seat in the General Assembly.” A division being called for, 44 voted in the affirmative. So the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon striking out the section as amended. Mr. MINER. I would like to have the sec- tion read as amended. The Secretary read. “Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this State, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assembly; but this provision shall not extend to township officers, justices of the peace, notaries public, or officers of militia; nor shall any person inter- ested in any contract with, or claim against, the State hold any seat in the General Assembly.” The PRESIDENT. The question is now on striking out. Mr. POWELL. I desire the reading of the proposed amendment by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. The Secretary read : “Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority ot this State, or interested iu any contract or claim involving an appropriation from the State treasury, or to which the State is a party, shall be eligible to, or hold a seat in the General Assembly; but the term ‘lucra- tive office’ in this section shall not be held to include jus- tices of the peace, notaries public, township officers, or officers of militia.” Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 1 am not sure as to the construction of this amendment, and I merely suggest the possibility of a construction being given to this section not intended by the Convention, a construction being given in some high excitement of party interest. The use of the words “claim against,” is an objection. The PRESIDENT. The question now is simply upon the striking out of the section as amended. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And upon that ques- tion I am trying to talk — the necessity to strike out. Would it hot be possible, and would there not be a semblance, at least, of fairness in say- ing that the owner of a bond — one of the bonds issued by the State — would be ineligible to a seat in the Legislature. Now, that is a claim — a claim against the State — I am aware that, or- dinarily, it is not classed in that way; but it is a claim against the State; and I can imagine Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Root, Burns, Tuttle, Humphreville. 1161 February 7, 1874.] sometimewhere there is a close balance of part- isan legislation, and where there are difficulties in the State on the part of the party to carry some measure through, such, for example, as that which occurred a few years ago on the adoption of the 15th amendment, when it might be determined to oust the party from his seat because he happened to be the owner of a city bond. Now, we can place this matter beyond a peradventure or doubt. It seems to me we ought to do so. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out, upon which the yeas and nays are demanded. The yeas and nays were taken, and resulted — yeas 33, nays 35, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Baber, Beer, Bishop, Burns, Campbell, Cunningham, Ewing, Hostetter, Kerr, McBride, Miner, Mitchener, Mullen, Page, Phellis, Philips, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Root, Scribner, Thompson, Tulloss, Voorhes, Yoris, Waddle, Watson, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Young of Champaign, President —33. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Bosworth, Carbery, Clark of Jeffer- son, Coats, Cook, De Steiguer, Doan, Dorsey, Foran, Greene, Hale, Hill, Hitchcock, Hum- phreville, Layton, McCormick, Miller, Mueller, Neal, Pond, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Rus- sell of Muskingum, Sample, Scofield, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Town- send, Townsley, Tuttle, Tyler, Van Yoorhis, Woodbury — 35. So the motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will proceed to read section 4. The Secretary read the section as amended. Mr. ROOT. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will pardon the Chair one moment. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] desires, instead of the word “any,” to insert “a,” — hold “a” seat. Mr. ROOT. If it is competent, I would make a motion. I want to suggest to those who framed this provision one thing, to obviate the objection made by the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], which, perhaps, is well taken. Before the word “claim” insert “unad- justed.” If the gentleman from Champaign [Mr. Young] has this in charge, I wish, espe- cially, to call his attention to it. Before the word “claim” insert the word “unadjusted;” then, the objection made by the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], which, I think, if not well taken, is certainly plausible, would be removed by putting in the word “unad- justed.” The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root] moves to insert the word “un- adjusted.” Is there any objection ? Mr. BURNS. I object; not because I think it ought not to be in there, but the section, as it now stands, is such an incongruity, such a patched- up section, that I would like, very much, to see it out of the way, and the substitute of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], or something else, in its place. Mr. ROOT. Will the gentleman allow me to ask one question ? Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Mr. ROOT. It is bad as it is. I understand the gentleman to say, “ I wish to say that this does not make it any worse, but rather im- proves it.” Now, let us have it as good as we can, lest we may have to take it without this improvement. I hope there will be no objec- tion to this amendment. Mr. BURNS. If, by that means, we could have some revision of the section, I would in- sist upon the objection. But rather than have the section as it is, I would consent to the amendment vof the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root]. I withdraw my objection. Mr. TUTTLE. I desire to say that the only object that I had in suggesting the amendment was to get rid of what I think would be a very serious objection, if it should be so framed that the fact, which might be unknown to the can- didate himself, of his being in any way inter- ested in a claim against the government that would make his election void. To get rid of that objection was the object of my amendment, and I have no objection, if the Convention is agreed, to the insertion of the word proposed by the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root]. I think it would be an improvement. Mr. ROOT. I would ask the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] if the word “ ad- justment” does not make this distinction?: In a claim already adjusted the holder is a mere creditor of the State; in an unadjusted claim he has “ an ax to grind,” perhaps. Mr. TUTTLE. That is the reason why I think the insertion of that word, so far as I now see, would be an improvement. I do not at present see any reason why the holder of a bond, for instance, against the State, or any other claim that has been adjusted and stands merely as a money claim, to be paid at some proper fixed time, ascertained and determined upon, should be incapable of holding a seat in the Legislature. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. I hope there will be no objection to inserting that word. I be- lieve it will remove the difficulty. If there are objections I will submit, as it would be out of order to insert it. The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, it will be inserted. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. To be placed at the end of the section, I suppose, and not in the body of it. The PRESIDENT. There being no objec- tion, the amendment of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], to insert the word “unad- justed,” will be accepted. The Secretary will read section 5. The Secretary read : “Seo. 5. No person convicted of an embezzlement of the public funds, shall hold any office in this State; nor shall any person, holding public money for disbursement, or otherwise, have a seat in the General Assembly, until he shall have accounted for and paid such money into the treasury.” Mr. TUTTLE. If I understood the reading itself, the word “hereafter ” The PRESIDENT. That was stricken out. If there are no amendments, the Secretary will read section 6. The Secretary read : 1162 [108th THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Godfrey, Hitchcock, Root. [Saturday, “Sec. 6. Each House shall be judge of the election re- turns and qualifications of its own members; a majority of all the members elected to each House, shall he a quorum to do business, but a less number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties, as shall be pre- scribed by law.” There being no amendments, the Secretary read sections 7 and 8 : Sec. 7. The mode of organizing the House of Repre- sentatives, at the commencement of each regular session, shall be prescribed by law. “Sec. 8, Each House, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, shall choose its own officers, may deter- mine its own rules of proceeding, punish its members for disorderly conduct; and with the concurrence of two- thirds, expel a member, but not the second time for the same cause; and shall have all other powers, necessary to provide for its safety, and the undisturbed transaction of its business.” Mr. GODFREY offered the following amend- ment to section 8 : Amend line three by adding, after the word “ two- thirds,” the words, “of all the members elected thereto.” Mr. GODFREY. In the present Constitution, several sections designate what portion of the body are authorized to do a certain thing. Some of the sections require that a certain portion of a quorum — that is, the requisite constitutional portion of members of either branch of the Gen- eral Assembly, then present and doing business. Some sections provide that two-thirds, some three-fifths, and some three -fourths, as the case may be, of all the members elected thereto, shall be required for certain purposes. In the present Constitution there are two sections that are left somewhat indefinite as to whether the entire body elected is meant, or whether it means that portion of the quorum then present and doing business. These are sections 8 and 16, especi- ally so with section 16. Differences of opinion have been expressed as to what is the meaning of “ the House,” in the present section 16. Our Committee have thought to remedy that, by the adoption of section 16 as reported, instead of section 16 as it now stands in the Constitution. This question should be well defined, and stripped of all doubt. I have known the presi- ding officers of the two Houses of the General Assembly deciding differently in regard to this point, one holding that “ the House ” means all the members elected to it, while the presiding officer of the other branch held that it only re- quired a certain proportion of the members present and doing business. We had those two officers, holding these different opinions as to the meaning of that expression, at one time in the General Assembly. But, as I have said, our Committee have remedied that difficulty in that section. Let us make section 8 so it will show clearly what is meant by saying that the num- ber required to expel a member shall be two- thirds of a quorum, or of all the members elected. I think it proper that it should be made two-thirds of all the members elected. I propose to make it definite and clear by saying two-thirds of all elected. Hence, I have offered the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The Secretary read the next section : “Sec. 9. Each House shall keep a correct Journal of its proceedings, which shall be published. At the desire of any two members, the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the Journal; and. on the passage of every bill or joint resolution having the effect of law, in either Hoase the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered up- on the Journal; and no such bill or joint resolution shall be passed, in either House, without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected thereto.” Mr. HITCHCOCK moved to amend the sec- tion by striking out, in line two, the words, “ any two members,” and inserting, “ one-fifth of the members present.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not wish, Mr. Pres- ident, to detain the Convention, as I made some remarks a few days since, giving my reasons for this change. The Constitution requires the yeas and nays to be taken upon the passage of all bills, and all joint resolutions, and the ma- jority of those elected to each House to concur in that passage. This requiring the yeas and nays on the demand of any two members amounts simply to a hindrance of the business of the body by any one disposed to compel a call upon a dilatory motion. It seems to me un- necessary. We have adopted, in this Conven- tion, a Rule like that proposed for this section . Mr. ROOT. I hope, Mr. President, that will be defeated. How do you know that you will have dilatory motions? I know there may be times when to have a vote taken by yeas and nays may possibly delay business ; but if it is a right of so much importance, instead of requir- ing even two members to demand it, I would greatly prefer that on the demand of any mem- ber, the yeas and nays shall be taken. I have seen enough and more than enough to satisfy me that the time occupied in taking a vote on appropriation bills and on items in appropria- tion bills, is more than compensated for by hav- ing members face the music and go on the re- cord. I have seen, sir, some of the most cor- rupt jobs go through, when it would have been difficult, nay, impossible, to have obtained one-fifth of the members present to demand the ayes and noes, and yet it would have been very improbable that it could pass at all if the call for the ayes and noes had been sustained. This is a matter of very great importance, and no consideration of expediting the passage of a bill or saving time, when you are spending the people’s money by thousands and tens of thou- sands, would induce me to part with the right, I say, of any member demanding a vote. Again, if the gentleman’s amendment does not prevail here, I would have the section amended in another way. I can see by the provision of this section, as it stands unamended, there might be some confusion. It says, “on the passage.” Now, I would have these votes on items demandable, and taken on the final reading, which is something different from the passage. And when they have been taken on the final reading as you may reach them, then I would require the ayes and noes to be taken on the whole bill engrossed. 1 know, sir, that it will be very difficult to provide perfect se- curity. I know how easy it is to make up items as you make up mail bags, throwing in a great many separate matters, and call it an item. Suppose, for instance, that my friend from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], were a member of the Legislature, and he wanted a great many things done for the benefit and advancement of the institution for idiotic youth, to which he has given a great deal of attention, and to which | he has rendered valuable service. Now, per- ! haps, they may want an ice-house built there; Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1163 February 7, 1874.] Root, Hitchcock, Tuttle. perhaps they may want a drain constructed, and, perhaps, a wall built. I do not know what all they might want; but he could introduce into one item thirty thousand dollars for com- pleting and repairing the building for that in- stitution, the buildings attached thereto, and the grounds on which the same stand. Where are your items now ? Why, you will have all these things there just as certainly to be jumbled to- gether, and made up in a batch as that the Leg- islature meets, and acts upon them. And there is a manifest propriety in putting some items in a class, or some specified items or classes into one item or bill ; but you cannot tell where you will stop, or how many, or how few, there shall be. We cannot provide for that. The lan- guage of the Article on this subject is as spe- cific, perhaps, as we can employ; nevertheless, I hope we never shall facilitate the rushing through of these appropriation bills. I hope we will give to one man— if there be but one man who wishes to have his name on the record — the privilege of showing that he was not one of those who voted for it. I hope we will give them that privilege, and encourage members who are disposed to oppose the power of wrong-doing, and protect the rights of the peo- ple. I never would, and I hope the Conven- tion never will, consent to any such thing. Now, it is not a very great compliment to any legislative body to say that a measure passed of which they know the vote is doubtful — can- not furnish one-fifth of its members to demand the ayes and noes ; but such is the fact, and men of experience have seen it, and know it. Whether they can pass it or not, let '•those who are in favor of it, put their names on the record ; and let those who are opposed to it, if they are a very small minority, if there is but one man opposed, let him have the right to have his name recorded. There is many an act, sir, in your statute-book that, perhaps, passed without any apparent opposition, that it would have been an honor to any statesman who had a seat in the Legislature at the time, if he could only have had.it appear that he voted, solitary and alone, against them. Many appropriations have been made there which never should have been made ; and it ought to be the right, not of any member alone, but of his constituents, and the people throughout the State, that he should go on record against what he deems an improper appropriation— that they should have the oppor- tunity of knowing who was faithful among the faithless. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I presume, Mr. Presi- dent, I would not be in order, as I have already spoken upon this. [“Leave, leave.”] I do not regard the amendment offered by my- self as one of very great importance. The re- marks of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], relate entirely to other questions if those re- marks were correctly understood. The provi- sion by which it is sought to amend this sec- tion with the other provisions in this Article, only refer to votes which are taken in the ordi- nary transaction of business, without any ref- erence whatever to the passage of bills. We have an additional provision in this same sec- tion, that requires the yeas and nays to be taken upon the passage of all bills, and to be entered upon the Journal, with an additional requir- ment, that not only all bills, but all joint reso- lutions, shall receive a majority of all the mem- bers elected to each House. Then this only re- lates to the calling of the yeas and nays upon incidental questions and motions. We, also, have an additional section — section 23 — which provides especially for making appropriations, to which the gentleman refers. Therefore, his remarks, as it seems to me, do not apply to the section before the Convention. My only object in offering the amendment was to meet an objection that was made to the section. Where a man may desire, as the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], says, to make a record, or may de- sire to make other men make a record, it may be well enough; but I do not think that a mat- ter of special importance. Nor is the amend- ment one to which I should ask the attention of the Convention at any length, but, for one, I shall favor the proposition whether it be agreed to or not. The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Geauga [M«r. Hitchcock]. The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. Are there any other amendments to the section? Mr. TUTTLE. I have an amendment which I want to suggest to the consideration of the Convention. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], offers the following amendment to section nine. The Secretary read : Insert at the end of line three, after the wo3'd “resolu- tion” the following words: ‘Except joint resolutions relating to the course of the business of the General Assembly, and not requiring the appropriation ol money.” Mr. TUTTLE. When the bill was originally reported, it did not provide for joint resolutions at all. But it was seen, in the Committee of the Whole, that joint resolutions would, in many instances, have such importance as to demand equal consideration with bills, and in that view the amendment was made, inserting the words “ or joint resolution having the effect of law.” The Committee at that time evidently conceiving that it was a provision which ought not to apply to all joint resolutions, and, as it seems to me, very justly. When, however, the subject came up again in the Convention, it was suggested, and I think with great force, by the Chairman of the Committee on the Leg- islative Department, that there ought to be nothing in the Constitution conceding or even intimating that a joint resolution should have the effect of law. And, with that view, the words “ having the effect of law,” which had been inserted in the Committee of the Whole, were stricken out in the section, so that it now makes these provisions in regard to every joint resolution. Now, what I desire to submit to the Convention is, that there are many joint resolutions which relate to the course of busi- ness in the Legislature, which should not re- quire a majority of all the members elected to the House, and that, in many cases, it might be productive of great evil to require any such majority. And I think if gentlemen will turn to the joint resolutions in the last published 1164 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Tuttle, Hunt, Horton, Powell, Young of C., Hale. [108th [Saturday, volume of our statutes they will find instances where mischief might be done, if there was a disposition to do it, by a refractory minority, and when no harm could be done by allowing a majority of a quorum present to act in the matter. And as an instance, I take the very first joint resolution which I there find, and will read it if I may be allowed : “Joint resolution providing for the appointment of a joint Select Committee to inform the Governor that the General Assembly is in session. “ Resolved^ by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That a committee of two on the part of the Senate, and three on the part of the House, be appointed to wait on the Governor and inform him that the General Assembly is now in session, and ready to receive any communica- tion he may have to transmit.” Now, I do not know that it would ever hap- pen — very likely it might not — that when the two Houses were nearly ready, or ought to be ready to receive such a communication, there would be any such refractory minority, who might, for the time being, have control, under this provision, of the proceedings of the Houses, who would refuse to concur in such a resolu- tion. And, on the other hand, all these provis- ions are made with the idea that, sometimes, such things may be done. And if they might not in this case, this is but one in very many instances in which, under this provision, a majority of the whole House would be neces- sary, or of the whole number of members elected, where, after all, for some reason, a minority sufficient, under this, to control, for the time being, the course of business, might refuse to concur in the joint resolution necessary to proceed with the business. And it is for the purpose of making what seems to me a correction that could not do any harm, and might sometimes do good, that I sug- gest this amendment. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] proposes to amend by inserting, at the end of line three, after the word “ resolution,” the following words : “Except joint resolutions relating to the course ot the business of the General Assembly, and not requiring the appropriation of money.” Mr. HUNT. The yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays are a gk e( J # Mr. HORTON. I object to the call. A vote being taken, the demand for the yeas and nays was not sustained. On the question of the adoption of the amend- ment, a division was called for and resulted, five for, and forty against. There not being a quorum voting, no decision was made. Mr. POWELL. Before the vote is taken, I would be glad to say a word or two to the Con- vention. Now, this proposition of the gentle- man from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] is necessary and called for. In another section we have adopted exactly the same thing. I think it was at the instance of the gentleman from Geauga I [Mr. Hitchcock]. It is necessary. We have ! adopted it in another section upon exactly the same arguments, and for the same season, i Now, merely from indifference, caring nothing about it, we refuse to put it here when it is as loudly called for. I hope the Convention will ! look to it and vote right. Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. A friend of mine suggests that he did not understand the amendment. I think he did not vote for that reason. Possibly other gentlemen failed to vote because they did not understand the amend- ment. I hope it will be reported again. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state the amendment. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] moves to amend section 9 by add- ing at the end of line three, after the word, “ resolution,” the following words : “ except joint resolutions relating to the course of the business of the General Assembly, and not re- quiring the appropriation of money so that the section, if amended, will read thus : “At tbe desire of any two members the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the Journal; and, on the passage of every bill or joint resolution, excepting joint resolutions relating to the course of business of the General Assem- bly, and not requiring the appropriation of money, in either House the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the Journal.” The question is now upon inserting the words proposed by the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle]. On which question a vote was taken, but there was not a quorum voting. Mr. ALBRIGHT. I move a call of the House. The call was ordered, and resulted as follows : Messrs. Albright, Baber, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Bosworth, Burns, Campbell, Carbery, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cunning- ham, De Steiguer, Doan, Dorsey, Ewing, Foran, Godfrey, Greene, Hale, Hitchcock, Horton, Hos- tetter, Humphreville, Hunt, Kerr, Layton, Mc- Bride, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Root, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Sample, Scofield, Scrib- ner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shel- by, Thompson, Townsend, Townsley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Van Voorhis, Voorhes, Yoris, Waddle, W atson , W eaver, W est, White of Hock- ing, Wilson, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 70. The PRESIDENT. There are seventy mem- bers present. Mr. HALE. I move that all further proceed- ings, under the call of the House, be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HALE. I demand the yeas and nays upon the pending question. Mr. TUTTLE. I want, if the Convention will permit, to make a slight change in my amendment. The proposition, as now made, is to insert after the words “joint resolution” in the third line, and by that means it exempts from the requisition for the yeas and nays, the resolutions that are sought to be made an ex- ception. That I do not desire. My object, as I said, was to provide that a joint resolution, simply having reference to the course of the business, should not necessarily require a ma- jority of all the members elected to the House. That was my object. It may be that other gentlemen would think it ought to go further, but if I may judge from the vote as far as it went, a good many thought it ought not to be done at all. But my object is to provide that mere joint resolutions in relation to the course of business of either House, and not in any way requiring the appropriation of money. 1165 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 7, 1874.] Tuttle, Burns, West, Powell, Hitchcock, etc. should not require a majority of all the mem- bers elected to the House. I propose, if the Convention consents, to change my amendment, so as to insert the words in the fifth line instead of the third. The PRESIDENT. Will not the object of the gentleman be better accomplished by putting them at the end of the section : “ and no such bill or joint resolution shall be passed in either House, without the concurrence of all the members elected thereto?” Mr. TUTTLE. Perhaps I have got my amend- ment so that it wants other change. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], proposes to ask leave to transfer the amendment offered by him from line three to line five. Mr. TUTTLE. If the Chair will permit me, I will read just what I want to make this read. Beginning after the semicolon in line five, make it so that it shall read thus : “ and no such bill or joint resolution, excepting joint resolutions having relation to the course of business in the General Assembly, and not requiring the appro- priation of money, shall be passed in either House, without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected thereto.” The PRESIDENT. After the word “resolu- tion?” Mr. TUTTLE. Yes, sir. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman desires to ask leave to transpose his amendment from line five to line three. If there is no objection, the gentleman has leave. The question is now on the adoption of the amendment, which will read as follows : “And no bill or joint resolution, except joint resolutions relating to the course of business in the General Assem- bly, and not requiring the appropriation of money, shall be passed in either House without the concurrence of all the members elected thereto.” Upon that question the yeas and nays are de- manded. Mr. BURNS. I do not understand it exactly. Now, there may be a great many joint resolu- tions, other than those appropriating money, or other than those relating to the business of the House. It only requires a majority of all the members elected. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman permit me? This does not affect any such resolution as that suggested by the gentleman. It does not affect resolutions. It specifies resolutions other than those which relate to the transaction of business in either House. It does not touch one of those. The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the amendment. Mr. WEST. I would suggest to the gentle- man from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], that I think the latter part of the amendment is injudicious, that money may not be appropriated by joint res- olution, which cannot be the case at any time. I think if he would withdraw that part of the amendment, the balance of it would be very proper. The mere ordinary resolutions affect- ing the relations of the two Houses, the order of the transaction of business, getting up rules or notifications of business, etc., need not be. The latter part of it about money matters, I think, is injudicious. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me ? I do not know whether the gentleman is correct ; but if he will take the joint resolutions of the last Legislature, which I have before me, he will find, I think, that a great many of them do require the appropriation of money. Mr. POWELL. May I interrupt a moment ? Mr. TUTTLE. Certainly. Mr. POWELL. I will suggest to the gentle- man — The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], has the floor. Mr. WEST. It might be involving the ex- penditure or payment of money. But the word “appropriation” is a bad word, ordering the payment of money or directing the expenditure of money. Mr. POWELL. I would suggest to the gen- tleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], that we have in the Article, provided sufficiently that no appropriations will be made except by law. Mr. TUTTLE. If I may be allowed, it was looking over these joint resolutions, seeing the subject of them, that induced me to put in that exception. If, however, it is thought to be ob- jectionable, I would strike out. But if, for in- stance, the gentleman will look at the joint resolution on page 400, he will find, after divers preambles, the following : “Therefore, be it Resolved , by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That the Trustees of the Northern Ohio Lunatic Asylum be, and are hereby, authorized to pay to Messrs. Brooks and Blair the sum of one thousand dol- lars, in full satisfaction of their claims aforesaid for re- moving the extension of said Asylum.” I do not know but there may be that in the present Constitution that would prohibit the passage of such joint resolutions as this. Mr. POND. That was to be paid out of the moneys that had been appropriated for that building. Mr. TUTTLE. Very likely; but my object was, instead of using the words, appropriation of money, to say : requiring the expenditure of money. Mr. WEST. I do not see the necessity of making any allusion to it, at all. If you simply except resolutions relating to the order of busi- ness, that is all the exception you want. Mr. TUTTLE. If that is the opinion of the gentleman, I have no objection to that change; and, with the consent of the Convention, will accept the modification striking out that excep- tion. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] asks leave to strike out from his amendment the words, “ and not re- quiring the appropriation of money.” If there is no objection, the words will be omitted. The question is now upon inserting the following words: “except joint resolutions relating to the course of business in the General Assembly.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I am not particularly opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle]. The vote of a majori- ty of all the members elected to each branch, may not be important upon such questions as are involved in this amendment. Yet it seems to me well enough to let the section stand as it now is, requiring this vote to be taken upon agreeing to all joint resolutions. While I am inclined to think that is all well enough, it is not because of such very great fears of the 1166 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Hitchcock, Powell, Mueller, Tuttle. [ Saturday, General Assembly, as are entertained by many gentlemen in this Convention. And as a part of my speech, I wish to read from two rules of the House of Representatives of this State : “Upon the passage of all joint resolutions and all House resolutions, involving the expenditure of money, the yeas and nays shall be taken and entered upon the Journal: but no such resolution, involving the expenditure of money, and no resolution having the force or effect of law, shall be passed unless a majority of all the members elected to the House concur therein. No compensation, allowance, or perquisite shall be paid to any officer, em- ploye or attache of the House other than that prescribed by law, or fixed originally by resolution. And this Rule shall not be altered or suspended except on three days’ notice, by a two-thirds majority of all the members elected to the House.” My object in reading these rules is to show that! while I concur in leaving this provision as it now stands, in accordance with the sen- timent of the Chairman of the Committee that reported this Proposition, the General Assem- bly is not entirely derelict in regard to these matters. These rules were adopted at the open- ing of the session, in 1870, and have been the rules of the House of Representatives, from that to the present time. And I think they go even farther than the gentleman has proposed in this Report to the Convention. Mr. POWELL. The rules read by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], have nothing to do with this question — nothing in the world to do with it. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I am aware of that. Mr. POWELL. He was reading for the pur- pose of showing that the change was unneces- sary; but the object is, to avoid having the dif- ficulty in the Legislature that requires a majori- ty of all who are elected, instead of a majority of those who are present to pass resolutions relating to the ordinary business of the House. And in accordance with the suggestion of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], a few days since, we made in another section an amendment on this very argument in relation to another matter. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the gentleman al- low me? The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], refers to remarks made by myself the other day, which w r ere in reference to sending to the Governor this class of resolutions for his approval. When the resolution which I in- stanced for the appointment of a Committee to wait upon the Governor, was passed — the ap- pointment of such Committee would necessari- ly be deferred until the resolution could be sent to the Governor, to learn whether he was willing that a Committee should visit him or not. Mr. POWELL. May I call the gontleman’s attention to one thing? This amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], is precisely the same thing. Mr. HITCHCOCK. This relates to the action of the General Assembly. The other related to the action of the Governor, in vetoing the action of the General Assembly. Mr. MUELLER. I think this section ought to stand, if it was only for one purpose. These joint resolutions in the General Assembly are sometimes made for no other purpose than to make political capital, so-called buncombe reso- lutions, and taking up the time of the Senate and House of Representatives for hours, and days, and when adopted amounting to nothing at all. I think this is a very wise provision, that every joint resolution ought to have the support of a majority of all the members elected to both Houses of the General Assembly. Mr.'POWELL. May I call the attention of the gentleman one moment? Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Mr. POWELL. There is a difference between a resolution merely for buncombe and the reso- lution of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], in reference to the business of the House. Business of the House is not bun- combe. Mr. MUELLER. I will answer the gentle- man. We have seen, by experience, that there has never been any harm done by this rule. The principle contained in this section has been found a good one, so much so that it was made the rule of both Houses of the General Assem- bly lor many years, and we have never exper- ienced any inconvenience from it. It requires that any joint resolution, as any other enact- ment of the Legislature, is to be supported by, at least, a majority of all the members of either House. I do not see, therefore, why we should hesitate to make it a provision in the organic law of the State. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Mr. TUTTLE. It is, how reducing the ma- jority necessary to passing a joint resolution, is going to place the House any more at the dispo- sal of those who want to move these resolutions, or discuss them, takes up the time of the House ? or how requiring a majority of the members elected to the House, is going to enable the House in any manner to protect itself against the consumption of time in the discussion of such matters? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon in- serting the amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], as now amended. On this question, the yeas and nays were de- manded, taken, and resulted — yeas 20, nays 50, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Bos worth, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cunningham, Ewing, Hostetter, Kerr, Mullen, Page, Pond, Powell, Rickly, Sample, Scofield, Thompson, Tuttle, Waddle, Wilson— 20. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Baber, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Burns, Campbell, Carbery, Cook, De Steiguer, Doan, Dorsey, Foran, Godfrey, Greene, Hale, Hitch- cock, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Layton, Mc- Bride, McCormick, Miller, Miner, Mitchener, Mueller, Neal, Phellis, Philips, Pratt, Root, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Scrib- ner, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Townsend, Tulloss, Tyler, Van Voorhis, Vorhes, Voris, Watson, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 50. So the amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. Are there any further amendments to this section? If there are no further amendments to this section, the Secre- tary will read section 10. The Secretary read : Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. _ 1167 Beer, Cunningham, Pond, Baber, Burns. February 7, 1874.] “Sec. 10. Any member of either House shall have the right to protest against any act or resolution thereof, and such protest, and the reasons therefor, shall, without al- teration, commitment or delay, be entered upon the Jour- nal.” The PRESIDENT. Are there any amend- ments to section 10 ? Mr. BEER. I offer the following amend- ment to section 10. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], offers the following amendment to section 10. The Secretary read : “Mr. Beer moves to amend the section as follows: “ ‘After the word “shall”, at the end of line two, add “be immediately read and.” Strike out the word “be”, in line three. Add at the end of line three “by the clerk.” ’ ” The PRESIDENT. Read the section as it will be if amended. The Secretary read : “Sec. 10. Any member of either House shall have the right to protest against any act or resolution thereof, and such protest, and the reasons therefor, shall be immedi- ately read, and without alteration, commitment or delay •entered upon the Journal by the clerk.” Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like to make an inquiry of the author of this amendment, as he is an old member of the General Assem- bly, whether it is not, ordinarily, supposed that the Clerk of either House does that business, or has it done ? Of course, he has a reason for his amendment. Now, I want to know what that reason is. Mr. BEER. I will answer the gentleman with the greatest pleasure. The Clerk does not always attend to it, but, on the contrary, quite the reverse. When this matter was discussed before, it was shown that cases have arisen in our General Assembly in which the protesting parties were not allowed to spread their pro- tests upon the Journal. One instance came un- der my own personal observation. The Journal of the House for 1870 will show that a protest, signed by nearly one-half the members of the House, with regard to the manner in which the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted, was not allowed to go on the Journal. If gentlemen will take the trouble to examine the Journal, it will be seen that the protest was offered, but was not allowed to be spread upon the Journal. The provision of my amendment is, that when the protest is presented, it shall be immediately read, and then, without alteration, commitment or delay, be entered upon the Journal by the Clerk. I make the addition of “ by the Clerk,” so that if it should be refused, the parties de- siring the protest, if they are particularly anx- ious upon the subject, so anxious that they would spoil if it did not go on the Journal, could get it on by mandamus. Mr. POND. I concur with some portion of the reasons given by the gentleman from Craw- ford [Mr. Beer], and will go as far as he will in requiring these protests to be put on the Journal. But I submit to the Convention, that there is no reason given, yet, sufficient to war- rant the Convention in requiring the General Assembly to listen to the reading of a long pro- test, and all the reasons for that protest, after the work has been done by the General Assem- bly. Of course, in the progress of the debate, the reasons that actuated the members in making the protest have been given by the members who make the protest. Doubtless, that is true. It is always the case in debates, especially where there is a good deal of interest manifested. And after deliberation has been had, and the House has voted upon the matter, and it is complete and finished, I cannot see the use of reviving the subject, and compelling the House to listen to the reading of it, especially when it will effect nothing. It has got to go upon the Journal, just as protests go upon our Journal. But I do not see the propriety of having it read. That it should go upon the Journal, I think, is eminently proper; but the requirement that the House shall listen to the reading, in all cases, without any chance of getting rid of it or answering it, I think, is un- wise. Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman give way ? Mr. POND. Yes, sir. Mr. BABER. I understand the object is to prevent a man from going privately and having a protest put upon the Journal; so that the matter may be presented to the House. A man should not go there privately and have his pro- test entered upon the Journal, without the knowledge of the House. That is the object of that provision. That might be done by the Clerk unless there was some limitation upon it. Mr. POND. I apprehend that, when a pro- testis made against the action of the House, it will be submitted to the body ; and any body who wishes to examine it can do so. If it goes on the Journal, it will be read the next day, as a part of the business of the House of the day before; and if there is anything wrong in it, it will be corrected. I do not see the necessity of peremptorily requiring that time shall be con- sumed in its reading. Mr. BURNS. I desire to ask the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] a question. The section, as it stands, is precisely the same as the present Constitution. I agree with the gentle- man from Crawford [Mr. Beer] that the pro- test ought to go on the Journal; but the ques- tion I desire to ask is this : By what authority was it claimed, in the instance he refers to, that it could be kept off the Journal? The present Constitution provides that it shall be entered on the Journal ; by what process was it kept off? Mr. BEER. It was kept off by main strength. [Laughter.] In one instance that I recollect, it was suggested by some member of the House that it was disrespectful, and, therefore, not a protest. And the speaker, with great wisdom, held that that was the fact, and, therefore, it should not go on the Journal. That was one case. In the 15th amendment case, I do not know exactly the process. It was done in the same way, on the ground that it was disrespect- ful, or that there was something in it not true, and it should not go on. Mr. BURNS. Done by a ruling of the presid- ing officer, directing the Clerk to disregard the Constitution ? Mr. BEER. Yes, sir. Now, by saying that it shall be the duty of the Clerk to do it, he will not be under the control of the presiding officer as to that particular ; and if he neglects to dis- charge the duty, he can be compelled to per- form it; but if it be left simply to the House, 1168 [108th THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Beer, Pond, West, Baber, Root, Powell. [Saturday, perhaps you cannot obtain a writ of mandamus against the members or presiding officer. Mr. POND. I would like to ask one ques- tion, whether the effect of that would not be, if the House was not to have any control of any of its officers, that any scurrilous paper might be put on the Journal and call it a pro- test. Mr. BEER. I think that might follow; but any member, that the people might elect, would take the responsibility. If he had the back- bone to write a paper of that kind and write himself down as Dogberry wanted to be, it would goon the Journal; and if it was partic- ularly scurrilous and offensive, so as to be ut- terly unfit to go on the Journal, perhaps they might punish or expel him. It would hurt him worse than anybody else. Mr. WEST. I think I will support the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], after striking out the requirement, that it be read. It is a most terrible infliction to have the General Assembly sit and get them- selves scolded most vigorously without the pow- er of replying to it. I remember once, when a protest was presented there that was terribly scathing, bitter, perfectly ferocious ; and there we had to sit and listen to it, because they commenced reading and got under head- way, and we could not stop them. And it was a pleasant exercise to sit there, and listen to it, against our consent. We had no objection in the world to having it go on the Journal, but the idea of being compelled to sit “ under the droppings of that sanctuary ” was perfectly torturing. It was like to have gotten up a reg- ular row, and pistols were very nearly drawn. It was an exciting time during the war. There is no propriety in requiring 'compulsory read- ing. If the House wants it read, they can order it read, and, I suppose, in nine cases out of ten, it will be read; but to compel its reading is going beyond what is proper, to give an oppor- tunity to scold the General Assembly, when no- body can scold back. Let it be put on record by the Clerk. That is all the Constitution ought to require. If that part of it is left out, I will vote for the balance of it. I do not think that part ought to be required. Mr. BABER. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], is on a special demufrer again. When a protest is presented, the first thing to be done — that question was never raised, or thought of, in the General Assembly — is to read it. 1 was there at the exciting contest over the Fifteenth Amendment, and a protest, signed by nearly one-half the members, was presented. It was read, and we had, forthwith, a decision by the gentleman who happened to be in the Chair, that it was disrespectful, and could not go on the Journal. An appeal was taken from that decision, and, by a strict party vote, that appeal was not sustained; and that protest did not go on the Journal. Now, I never before heard of this objection as to reading. I suppose the object of reading was to prevent a man from going there under a constitutional right, and putting a protest on the Journal, without the knowledge of the House. That is the whole object of the reading. I claim, in this country of free speech, that where the Representatives of the people come forward with a paper, they have a right to have it read. The gentleman says you can’t reply to it. You can reply to it. Yon may have a committee appointed, if you choose, to do in this matter just as it used to be in protests that were offered in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. I rec- ollect a precedent of that sort. A reply can be made to a protest. If the members have been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, in the action they have taken, the House can censure them; and I do not know but they might go still further, and expel them. I do hope that the Convention will not endeavor to evade this matter. The whole object of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], as I un- derstand it, is to have protests entered upon the Journal; to make it the duty of the Clerk, the recording officer, notwithstanding any ruling of the Speaker, or any action of the House, and carry out the intention of the Constitution ; and if he does not carry out that intention, an appli- cation may be made to the supreme court for a mandamus to compel him to do it. If they pre- sent an improper protest, they are responsible to their constituents for it. The House may reply to it, or they may censure them. But this little special demurrer is simply an attempt to evade the question. If the gentleman can improve the language of the amendment, I have no objection; but I maintain that a member has the right to have his protest read, and be heard. Mr. ROOT. I was not a member of the House at the time the XVth Amendment was ratified by the Legislature of this State ; but I was a member of the General Assembly, and I had something to do and say about it; and I am not entirely ignorant of what occurred in the House. I think there were two grand blunders made then. In the first place, by drawing up and presenting such a protest as was offered by Mr. Hughes and others. I would give something for the original for the use of the biographers of the subscribers to that pro- test; but 1 do not believe that they would give much to have it preserved. And then a greater blunder was made by the Republican members — for I believe it was pretty nearly a party question — in sustaining a decision of the Chair that the protest should not be received, because it was not in respectful language. I think this was a denial of a Constitutional right, and being a blunder, was worse than a crime. Mr. POWELL. Was it not so much a blun- der that it became a crime? Mr. ROOT. I say it was a great deal worse than a crime, it was a blunder. [Laughter.] There were blunders on both sides, and the blunder of the Republicans helped the other side out of their blunder, which was equally gross if they had only been held to it. Now, sir, to consider this question of reading the protest : undoubtedly, by the ancient parliamen- tary law, a member or members of the House of Lords had a right to have a protest en- tered on the Journal, and, undoubtedly, sir, it was requisite that that protest should be in re- spectful terms. Well, as that was a matter to be adjudged by the Chancellor — presiding officer — subject to the opinion of the House, it was ne- cessary to have it read, and invariably it was read. There were instances that you will find in THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Root, Hunt, Cook, Carbery, Hitchcock. 1169 Day.] February 7, 1874.] the history of Parliament, where the member or members presenting a protest, asked leave to withdraw it, to make it conform to the j udgment of the body , or withdraw it entirely, or sometimes to have it ruled out because of its disrespectful language. Well, now, we have it in the present Constitution, and it is proposed that we shall have a similar provision in this Constitution, that any member may enter his protest on the Journal, be it what it may, so it be a protest. He is to judge of the language which he will employ. It takes away, sir, from the presiding officer, and it takes away from the body itself, all right of criticism. The member does it on his own responsibility. That is the plain meaning and intent of the provision of the present Constitution ; and the provision here proposed. Now, why read it? The presiding officer has no control over it. The body itself has no control over it. It is made simply the duty of the Clerk to enter it upon the Journal. The gentleman from Frank- lin says that he wants to have it read, so that the member shall not go up in a sneaking sort of way, and hand it to the Clerk, and get it on the Journal. Then he should alter the other part of this proposition. That is precisely what it authorizes him to do. We do not say anything abont sneaking, but he can go as quietly as he pleases, and have his protest en- tered. Now, why read it ? He wants no leave. He has the right, as some folks say, “ the sover- eign right,” to put his protest on the Journal, and he is to judge of the propriety of the lan- guage. Well, it is not necessary to consider what the House mightdo in a case of unbounded licentiousness in the language employed in a protest. But I think it would be a queer sort of business for any body else to undertake to punish a member for disrespectful, disorderly conduct, in doing just what the Constitution authorized him to do. There is a protection suggested by the honorable mover of this pro- vision. He says that, if any member desires to be written down as Dogberry wished to be, let him have the privilege. Well, sir, he takes big chances in that way, when he indulges in any improper language in a protest; for he is very sure, if he does not write himself down as a donkey, to be denominated a donkey forever afterwards, by those who read his protest. Now, it is no great matter, and really there is no reason for having such a composition read. Not the least. It is a paper with which the House or presiding officer has nothing to do. It is the constitutional right of any member to draw it — draw it as to him seemeth good — and have it put upon the Journal by the Clerk; whose duty it is made, by the Constitution, to disregard all that is done by the presiding offi- cer or the body itself, and record the protest. Mr. HUNT. The circumstance to which the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer] alluded, may be found in the Journal of 1870, page 918. “ On the 16th of A pril, 1870, during the evening session, Mr. Hughes presented a paper as a protest, signed by himself and thirty-eight members of the House, against the action thereof in having ratified the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was read by the Clerk. Mr. Dennis raised the point that the paper was not properly a protest, y. n-7 6 because it contained language impugning th© motives of the majority, and language disre- spectful towards that majority, such as a mem- ber would not and could not use orally. The Speaker (Mr. Hitchcock in the Chair) decided that the point of order was well taken ; that while the right of any member or members to protest was undoubted, still, under the claim of protest, no member could introduce a paper containing language disrespectful to the House, impugning the motives of members, or charging them with fraud; nor any language that, be- cause written, the member would not be entitled to use standing in his place on the floor of the House. That, therefore, the said paper, pre- sented to the House as a protest, would not be received and entered upon the Journal. Mr. Callen appealed from the decision of the Chair, but the House sustained said decision by a vote of yeas 49, nays 41.” It seems to me that there is nothing in the reasoning of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], or the gentleman from Logan [Mr.WEST], why a protest should not be read in the presence of the Assembly. The party offering the pro- test is the Representative of the people, and it is right and proper that the House should have full knowledge of the character of the protest. It should be read from the Clerk’s desk, and the party protesting should be secure in the right to have it entered on the Journal. Mr. COOK. I will ask the gentleman if it would not be read, as a matter of course, on the day when the Clerk reads the Journal of the preceding day, unless dispensed with by order of the House? Mr. HUNT. I do not know that it would always be read. It is possible that the protest would be treated as a petition is treated in our minutes, or on the Journals of the General As- sembly. You find the Journal states that a petition for a certain object was presented and referred to the proper Committee. That is about all that appears on the Journal. Mr. COOK. The Constitution requires it to be put on the Journal, and would not the Clerk read it the next day, necessarily? Mr. CARBERY. Would not the body have a right to expunge anything disrespectful after- wards? Mr. HUNT. I apprehend that would not be true in the case of a protest, because that is a Constitutional right secured to the member; but, at any rate, there seems to be no good rea- son why this should not be presented in the regular order of business, that the member should present the protest to the House, and that it should be read by the Clerk in the pres- ence of the House, and entered, at length, upon the Journal. It is a right which, in my judg- ment, belongs to a Representative of the people. It should be secured where we have fixed the right of protest by Constitutional enactment, without alteration, commitment, or delay. It properly belongs to the Bill of Rights, and should be made as secure as the writ of habeas corpus, or the rightof trial by jury. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I see no necessity for the motion to amend by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. So far as it requires the reading of the protest, I understand, Mr. Presi- dent, that no paper whatever is before the body 1170 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Hitchcock, Beer, Page, Root, West. [Saturday, is introduced, until it is read, unless the reading is dispensed with by vote of the body. If the proposition of the gentleman is, that the protest shall be read, notwithstanding the objection of the body, there might be an object in requiring it to be done. Otherwise, I see no such object; for a paper must, necessarily, be read, in order to be presented to the body. The reading from the Journal of 1870, by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], may obviate all necessity of my adding a remark which I had intended to make, after the colloquy between the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], and the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The result of the colloquy seemed to be that, by direction of the presiding officer of the House, the protest re- ferred to was omitted from the Journal. The reading of the Journal shows what was the fact : that a point of order was raised upon the reading of this paper, and that the presiding officer decided that the point of order was well taken, and that the paper could not be entered upon the Journal. There was not such an abso- lute direction to the Clerk as might be inferred from the colloquy between those gentlemen. The gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], however, may have referred to the other in- stance, occurring at an earlier session. Mr. BEER. I certainly did. Mr. HITCHCOCK. So far as this question is concerned, the Convention will recollect, when this Article was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole, I sought to secure such an amendment to this section as would re- quire protests to be made in language such as a member would be allowed to use in his place upon the floor. But the very general expres- sion of the Convention was, that the protest was to be admitted, no matter what might be the character of the language used. That may be the correct principle; but there is no doubt at all that the presiding officer who made the deci- sion at the time of the ruling that was made, was not only then well satisfied, but is still satisfied, with the decision made, notwithstanding what may be said by gentlemen upon this floor. I do not believe that any constitutional provision can be made which will compel a paper to be placed upon the Journal of the House, if that paper is presented in language which the rules of the House would forbid utterance upon the floor by a member. It is intimated that the decision, at the time referred to, was from partisan considerations, and sustained by a partisan majority. From personal knowledge of the circumstances, I do not believe that this decision at that time was in any sense influenced by partisan feeling on the part of the presiding officer. There is the very best evidence of want of that feeling in this, that while such decision was made, the feeling of the minority, not only at that time, but at all times, has been fully as cordial toward the indi- vidual who made the decision, as it has been on the part of the members of the majority, and this is the fact, not only of that House but of other Houses. Mr. PAGE. I am in favor of this amend- ment, but ldo not think it introduces any very material alteration in parliamentary law on the subject of protests. It would, perhaps, be best in times of high party excitement, to leave the I question of protests to the courts. And it is per- fectly certain that no court would ever order, by mandamus , a protest to be entered upon the Journal, if it was in disrespectful or insulting or scurrilous language. If an appeal was made upon that subject to a court, no judge would ever order such a document to be entered upon the Journals of the Legislature. I recollect a case in the supreme court of the United States where a notice was given in language that was disrespectful and insulting, and the supreme court held that such a notice might be disre- garded by the party on whom it was served, and it was, in fact, no notice at all. Now, the party who would apply to the court, and ask to have his protest entered upon the Journals of the Legislature, would have to bring into court a respectful document, or it would not be listened to. Mr. ROOT. No court would entertain such a motion for whatever alleged cause. Mr. PAGE. Well, the gentleman from Craw- ford [Mr. Beer] claims that, under his amend- ment, where the Clerk refuses to enter his pro- test upon the Journal, he might appeal to the court. It being a simple clerical duty, I think he might ask the court to compel the Clerk to enter it upon the Journal. I say the Clerk him- self would be authorized in refusing to enter a scurrilous or insulting document upon the Journals of the Legislature. And it would be his duty, even under the amendment offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] to refuse. The party, then, if the gentleman from Crawford is right in his construction of the law, and I believe he is, might appeal to the court; and the party who presented a docu- ment that was insulting or scurrilous would gain nothing by his motion. The judge would compel him to present it in respectful terms before he would grant an order. The law re- quires decency and courtesy in all proceedings. Mr. WEST. I am not objecting to this amend- ment, except the portion of it requiring it to be read. That is the only part I have found fault with. My friend from Franklin [Mr. Baber], with whom I have learned to harmonize very cordially, calls that a special demurrer. Gentle- men must remember that this is an amendment that will cut both ways. It is a two-edged in- strument. Whilst there may be a little feeling on one side, it can be used against the other party when it is in the ascendency. It operates both ways. What we do here, we must do with- out reference to what has been done heretofore in any other than a mere parliamentary sense. Mr. BEER. Will the gentleman allow me a word? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. Mr. BEER. I thought of that. I expect to be in the majority now, for a long time to come. I am doing this now out of the most philan- thropic motives towards gentlemen whom I ex- pect to be in the minority. Mr. WEST. That is true. I expect the I Grangers to have control of the Legisla- I ture now in a short time and to continue [ so. I am expecting that the member from Crawford [Mr. Beer], and myself will oc- cupy a back seat, until we get hay seed in our hair. The proposition is simply this, why compel a body to sit and listen to that Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1171 February 7, 1874.] West, Beer, Baber, Campbell, Scribner, etc. which the body would not be required to listen to, if it was uttered by any gentleman in argu- ment, in his place upon the floor. Now, I want to leave the House to judge whether it will listen to the reading or not. The Con- stution requires the document to go upon the Journal. 1 am perfectly willing that it shall pass to the Journal. The protest is to the House, and it passes from the possession of the House to the Journal in silence, unless it be ordered to be read, or required to be read. Now, when the reading has commenced, and the document is found to be utterly scurrilous and indecent, shall not the House have an op- portunity to interpose, and say, the Clerk shall not read that document? Place it upon the table, if you want to; but do not require that ears of sensitiveness and modesty, shall hear such a paper : for there are always about the House persons not connected with the House, that might be slightly shocked by a document of that kind. There may be persons who may be perfectly willing, and have back-bone enough to write themselves down as Dogberry wanted himself written down ; but when it is discovered, upon reading, that the document is, in itself, unfit to be read in the hearing of any decent body, then let the House have the power to stop its reading, and let it pass to the Jour- nal, without its being read. I do not want any compulsory reading. It may, and I doubt not will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be ordered by the House to be read ; but if, upon the reading of it, it should be found to be un- lit to be read or heard, I want the power of the House to stop its reading, and let it go to the Journal — “the tomb of all the Capulets.” Mr. BEER. Will the gentleman allow a word? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. Mr. BEER. I will ask the gentleman, whether it would give satisfaction to say, it shall be immediately read, unless objection be made, and without alteration, commitment or delay be entered upon the Journal ? Mr. WEST. I want the House to have con- trol of the reading. Mr. BEER. I say insert in this amendment, “ unless objection be made.” Mr. WEST. If objection be made, it may be stopped. Leave that to the House. Mr. BABER. The gentleman is going on under a misunderstanding of the object of this word “ reading.” That is put in in order to give the House an opportunity to know what is going on the Journal. Now, if objection is made, the question will be, shall it be read? Then it can be stopped. I want to ask the gentleman how the document can be there un- til it is read ? Mr. WEST. There is not any trouble about it in the world. Does not the gentleman know that every day this Convention is in session memorials are presented at the Secretary’s desk, and nothing except their name or title is known? We do nut know what these memori- als or petitions contain, unless the reading of them is called for, or ordered, or consented to. Now, no protest can go upon the Journal by the Clerk until it goes through the legitimate channel. The Clerk does not dare to put it on. A memorial is presented, or its name is given, what the subject of the memorial relates to. That is all we know of the memorial. The same way when a protest comes in : A, B, and C present their protest against the action of the House on a certain subject. That puts the House in possession of it, and the House can let it pass to the Journal, or order it read, or any- thing of the kind that it sees proper. It can not go to the Journal. It must go through the House to the Journal. No court can order it there. Mr. CAMPBELL. We have done a pretty good week’s work. I move that the Convention now adjourn. leave to present a petition. Mr. SCRIBNER. I ask the gentleman to withdraw a moment. I was not in my own seat this morning when petitions were called for. I should be glad to ofler a petition. Leave was given. Mr. SCRIBNER presented the petition of D. C. Belts, and one thousand other residents of Lucas county and its vicinity, praying that the adult women of Ohio maybe admitted to all the rights of citizenship ; and asked its reference to the Committee on Woman Suffrage. The PRESIDENT. The petition will have that reference. Mr. WEST. I know a question for adjourn- ment is not debatable. Many of us are away from home, and it is desirable, while we are kept away so long, that we should come back and try to get a quorum. The question being on adjournment, a divi- sion was called for, and the motion was not agreed to. Mr. YORIS. I move the Convention now take a recess until two and one-half o’clock this afternoon. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like to make a single statement. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman yield the floor ? Mr. VORIS. I will withdraw the motion in favor of the gentleman if he will renew it. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will renew it. The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] has the floor. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It appears to me, we might remain an hour longer, and make that much time. I am very sure, when we come here this afternoon, there will be no quorum in the Hall. Mr. BURNS. I would like to ask the gen- tleman how he knows that? Mr. WEST. I move that we take a recess. The motion was agreed to ; and the Conven- tion took a recess, at 12 : 45 p. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 2 : 30 P. M. : Mr. Humphreville in the Chair. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Last summer, at Columbus, an order was passed by the Conven- tion, appointing me to preside in the absence of the President and Vice President. The Presi- dent and Vice President are both absent this afternoon, and our former President [Mr. 1172 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Humphreville, Pond, Sample, Beer, Hitchcock, Burns, Dorsey. [Saturday, Waite], and our present President [Mr. King], both considered that as a standing order, and, hence, I am properly the presiding officer. I desire to state, that as th§ Article now under consideration was reported by the Committee on the Legislative Department, of which Com- mittee I am a member, I feel some delicacy in presiding during the consideration of this Arti- cle; and, besides, I would like to be upon the floor, so that, if I think it necessary, I shall be able to address the Convention upon the subject matter pending. I shall, therefore, take ad- vantage of the power I have, and call the gen- tleman from Wood [Mr. Cook] to the Chair to preside. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. (Mr. Cook in r the Chair). The question pending is upon the motion of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] to amend section 10. The Secretary will read the amendment offered by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The Secretary read : The section, as amended, will read : “Sec. 10. Any member of either House shall have the right to protest against any act or resolution thereof, and such protest, aud the reasons therefor, shall be immedi- ately read, without alteration, commitment or delay, and entered upon the Journal by the Clerk.” Mr. POND. I ask for a division of the ques- tion, so that that portion that applies to the reading shall be voted upon separate from the other. Mr. SAMPLE. I offer the following as a substitute for the words, “ shall be immediately read,” in the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The Secretary read : Strike out the words “be immediately read,” after the wofd “shall”, in the third line, and insert “on being pre- sented to such House.” Mr. BEER. I have no particular amount of stock in the words, “shall be immediately read,” and, if the Convention will consent, I shall accept this amendment. Leave was granted. Mr. HITCHCOCK. How would it now read ? The Secretary read : “Any member of either House shall have the right to protest against any act or resolution thereof, anj such protest, and the reasons therefor, shall, on being presented to such House, without alteration, commitment or delay, he entered upon the Journal by the Clerk.” Mr. BURNS. I would suggest to the gentle- man from Coshocton [Mr. Sample] that the word “such,” where it last occurs, should be stricken out, and the word “ the” inserted. I am not particular, but it seems to me it would read better, as the word “ such ” is repeated. Mr. DORSEY. I am very glad that the gen- tleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], has of- fered the amendment which he has to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Be^r]. I feel disposed to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], at least, to a certain ex- tent; because I feel that it is right that the end sought for by the gentleman should be attained by the Convention. The right of protest is a right invaluable to the minority, and aright which the majority should not have power, in any wise, to curtail or to deny. The recogni- tion of that right, and the power to enforce it, ought to be so plainly laid down in the Consti- tution of the State, that it can never, by any possible means, be taken away from the minor- ity. The amendment of the delegate from Craw- ford [Mr. Beer], tends to that end; but, in or- der to obtain that end, there is no necessity that the declaration should be made that such pro- test should be read. I suppose that, as a matter of course, any member of the House would have the right to call for the reading, and it would then be read. I presume, in a great ma- jority of cases, it would be read; that, in a great majority of cases, there would be no ob- jection to reading. The mere fact that it might be considered a little unpleasant for the major- ity to be obliged to hear certain reprimands by the minority, does not amount to anything at all. The majority would probably be able to stand that without any very great amount of unpleasant feeling. It is important that the section should be so amended, that the responsibility of entering the protest on the Journal should be fixed, and that we should know precisely where it belongs ; so that if there is a refusal or neglect to make the entry, the proper remedy can be applied. This is done by the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], without the neces- sity of inserting the words “ being immediately read,” and it is done effectually by the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample]. It makes it the duty of the Clerk to enter the protest upon the Journal. True, it may be said that it is the duty of the Clerk ; that no one else has the right to enter it upon the Journal. But it should be stated in so many words that it is his duty, and that if that duty is neglected, he, as an officer of the House, can be brought by the courts to perform his duty. That is precisely what is required. In that way the rights of the minority can be secured ; and that is precisely, as I understand it, what Con- stitutions are for — that the rights of all, the minority as well as the majority should be pro- tected. As I said, the right of protest is an in- valuable right; and I am anxious to put an amendment into the Constitution that will secure that right beyond any possibility of denial. For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], to the amendment of the gentle- man from Crawford [Mr. Beer], and then shall hope to see the section as amended, adopted by the Convention. Mr. VORIS. Before the gentleman takes his seat, I would like to have him explain wherein the right of protest is invaluable to the minor- ity. Mr. WEST. Let us forego that. Let us vote this in. Mr. VORIS. The gentleman does not need the information that I do, and he can very well afford to forego it. Mr. DORSEY. If the gentleman needs the information, it will not take a great many words to convey it to him. It is a right which every man has to convey his opinions to his constitu- ents, and the minority may have no other way of conveying those opinions, except by having their protest entered upon the Journal; and for 1173 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 7, 1874.] Dorsey, Hitchcock, Burns, West, Humphreville. that reason it is a valuable right to the minor- ity. Mr. Sample’s amendment, as accepted by Mr. Beer, was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon the section as amended. The section was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secre- tary will read section eleven. The Secretary read : “Sec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House shall, for the unexpired term, be filled by election, as shall be directed by law.’' The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there are no amendments to section eleven, the Secretary will read section twelve. The Secretary read : “Sec. 12. Senators and Representatives, during the session of the General Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same, shall be privileged from arrest in all cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace; and for any speech or debate, in either House, they shall not be questioned elsewhere.” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There being no amendments to section twelve, the Secretary will read section thirteen. The Secretary read : “Sec. 13. The proceedings of both Houses shall be public, except in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present, require secrecy.” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secre- tary will read section fourteen. The Secretary read : “Sec. 14. Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than two days, Sundays ex- cepted, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be in session.” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secre- tary will read section fifteen. The Secretary read : “Sec. 15. Bills may originate in either House, hut may be altered, amended or rejected in the other.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move to amend section fifteen by inserting at the commencement of the section, the words, “all enactments of law shall be by bill.” Mr. BURNS. My memory is not distinct enough, but I would inquire whether that pro- vision is not embraced in some other part of the Constitution, that “ all enactments shall be by bill.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not think that it can be found anywhere in the Article. I have con- sulted with the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Humphreville], and believe he thinks it is not embraced in the Article. So far as appro- priations are concerned, there is a similar pro- vision in one section, which relates to that sub- ject; but there is none which relates to the passage of other than appropriation bills. I do not wish to consume the time of the Convention at all. The reasons why it is important that this should be done, were given the other day. It had been suggested that there might be reso- lutions having the force and effect of law, and this would settle that question. With this amendment, there would be no danger of reso- lutions being passed having such effect. Mr. WEST. It seems to me, this amendment is, probably, not necessary. I have not any doubt in the world but a joint resolution of the General Assembly, directing the trustees of the Imbecile Institute to pay certain moneys, is just as much a law as a bill is. Why that should be enacted in the form of a bill, and go through three readings, when it is simply to direct some public functionary to pay what is justly due, I cannot understand. A resolution is a law. There is no doubt of it in the world. It is not that permanent character of law that goes upon our statute books for a permanent purpose. To say that all enactments of law shall be by bill, would be to say that anything that is not a bill cannot be treated or regarded as a law. A resolution of the General Assem- bly, that directs anything to be done, is a law. If it directs any public functionary to do any act, it is the rule of his action. It is an order upon him. It is a law governing his conduct. Mr. BURNS. I call the attention of the gen- tleman from Logan [Mr. West], and the gentle- man from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], to the 19th section, which says that “the style of the laws in this State shall be : ‘Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.’” I am not prepared even to give my judgment as to what that means. It is in the present Con- stitution in the same form. The style of all laws shall be as herein designated. Now, if that be the fact, then a resolution would not comply with this constitutional requirement. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. If there is any doubt whether a law may or may not be passed by resolution, I would be glad to have that doubt removed. I desire that all laws shall be by bill; and that no resolution shall be passed that shall have the effect of law, and if there is any doubt under our present Constitution, if resolutions are passed with the provision in the Constitution referred to by the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Burns], I want to make it still more certain. I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock]. I believe that no law should be passed by reso- lution, but that all enactments of law should be by bill, and that they should be read three times; that they should be passed with all the solemnity of law. If it is a law directing the payment of money, it certainly should be well considered. Whatever the object of a resolu- tion or of a bill, if it has the effect of law, it should be in the shape of a bill, and be passed with all due consideration. Resolutions relating to the organization of each House are a different matter. They are generally not joint resolutions. There are few joint resolutions referring to the business of either House, unless it is in the form of joint rules for the government of the two Houses; and they ought to be well considered ; and they ought to pass by a majority vote of all the mem- bers elected to either House. I do not believe in this loose way of paying money out of the treasury by a simple resolu- tion. I recollect once, when I was in the Gen- eral Assembly, the question was discussed fre- quently in the House, as to whether they should elect an official reporter. It was successfully opposed until about the last week of that ses- sion. They then elected, as official reporter, some gentleman who had been reporting for some newspaper in the State ; and, by a resolu- 1174 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Humphreville, Voris, Powell, Root, Pond, West, Beer. r 108th [Saturday, tion, actually paid him for the whole session at the same per diem that members received. Such acts as that I consider entirely wrong. I hope the amendment will be agreed to. Mr. VORIS. I would inquire whether there was any veto power to be interposed in that case? Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. There was no veto. Mr. POWELL. I only wish to say a few words upon the matter now before the Conven- tion, and they are with regard to the words “ law” and “resolution.” It has been said by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] that a resolution is a law. It may be so in many cases, but, technically, it is not so. If a person is asked the difference between a cottage and a house, it will be very difficult to answer the question. A cottage is a house. A house may not be a cottage, or it maybe a house that is not a cottage. So with regard to the words judgment and order. There is a technical difference be- tween an order and a judgment, which is readily recognized by every lawyer. A lawyer under- stands what we mean by a judgment. It is the final order of court in the decision of a cause ; but there may be orders intermediate that are judgments, as, for instance, an order that the plaintiff or defendant pay certain costs in a case. It is usually called an order, but it is equally a judgment. There is a technical dif- ference between them, and so there is a tech- nical difference between a resolution and a law. A resolution is generally considered a tempo- rary thing, for a temporary purpose, and local or personal, and not general in its operation ; and though it may have the effect of a law, so far as that goes, it is not technically a law. There will be no harm in passing the section under consideration with the different under- standing entertained by the members, between what is technically called a law and what is called a resolution, though that difference is understood by every lawyer. Mr. ROOT. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] wheth- er he is not aware that the supreme court of the United States, half a century since, through the mouth of John Marshall, pronounced that a joint resolution was a law ? Mr. POWELL. I had forgotten that. T suppose that I once knew it, but it did not occur to me just now. I admit that it may, in some cases, operate as a law ; but there is a technical difference between a law and a resolution, as there is between a cottage and a house, or be- tween an order and a judgment. Mr. ROOT. I always supposed there was a technical difference between a bill and a joint resolution, each and both being law. Mr. POND. I apprehend, in construing this section, the elementary principles that govern these things will be resorted to in determin- ing what the effect of a joint resolution and a bill enacting a law is. A law is simply a rule of action, so the old books say, if 1 remember rightly. If the General Assembly, as has been done in several instances, by a joint resolution, direct the Attorney General of the State to go to Cincinnati and make a contract with the Di- rectors of Longview Asylum to maintain a cer- tain portion of the insane from other portions of the State at a certain rate, that certainly would be the rule of action for the Attorney General, and he would be compelled to do it, just exactly as much as if it was in the shape of a formal bill. We have recognized this in the proceedings which we have just gone through with. In the ninth section we have thrown a safeguard around the passage of joint resolutions, and have stated, in that provision, that, “on the passage of every bill and joint resolution, in either House, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the Journal. No bill or joint resolution shall be passed in either House without the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected there- to;” and this Convention has deemed it proper to direct a joint resolution, of so high a charac- ter as to need, and receive, and have all the sanction that a bill has upon its final passage, with regard to the number of votes which it shall take to pass it, making it more impera- tively a law than it was before — and it was a rule of action before. It appears to me to make the Constitution inconsistent with itself to say that a law shall be enacted by a bill, after you have stated that a law may be enacted by a joint resolution. Upon the motion of Mr. Hitchcock, a divi- sion was called for, and, being had, resulted — affirmative 32, negative 19. Mr. POND. There is not a quorum voting. Mr. WEST. If this amendment is agreed to, you might as well strike out from the residue of the Article, the words “joint resolution,” where they occur, because they never can have the effect to other than prevent the passage of joint resolutions by the two Houses of the Gen- eral Assembly for any purpose whatever. If an enactment of law must be by bill, let us not en- cumber the Article by joint resolution, because it will prohibit the passage of a joint resolution. Mr. BEER. Will the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], allow me to suggest: Do we not instruct our Senators and members of the House of Representatives by joint resolution ? That is not a law. Mr. ROOT. That is buncombe. Mr. BEER. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], would cut us out of all our buncombe. Mr. WEST. Suppose the two Houses might direct the Board of Public Works, by joint reso- lution, to make an investigation into, or perform some duty upon some of the public works. It would be simply a directory resolution; but it would be a joint resolution. It is a law, without doubt. Just as much of a law as an}^- thing else, and, yet, it is not in and of itself a thing that is to be permanent in its character, such as a statute. But, if this amendment passes, I do not see that it is possible for the General Assembly to direct an) r of its public officers to go and do anything, to make any in- vestigation, or seek any information, or any thing of that kind, unless it be read three times in each House, and it will require a month to be passed through. Certainly, we have not had any trouble, heretofore, with regard to this matter. The distinction between what is ordi- narily known as a resolution ,und what is a per- manent statute — a permanent rule of action — is so clearly and well understood by all legislative bodies that no difficulty has, heretofore, grown up with regard to it. A House may, sometimes. Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1175 February 7 , 1874 .] West, Hitchcock, Pond, Powell, Tuttle. have passed a resolution which was not itself legal. The officers of State, the Auditor and Treasurer, ought to have disregarded it. There is no reason why this should be passed, at all. This would not prevent an abuse of that kind — a single House electing a reporter, and ordering the reporter to be paid, illegally and improp- erly, and the public officers are ordered to draw their warrant upon the illegal order of that kind — an illegal, or unconstitutional, resolution. But this is no argument, here, why we should incorporate this matter, because such an illegal act will be done again, every day. It is a reso- lution of a single House, and it ought not to have been recognized at all. I venture to say that even in the particular case — although I do not know what the facts were — that there was not a dollar of money paid on that resolution until it was incorporated in a bill, and directed to be paid. If it was, it was wrong. It was a violation of the Constitution, by the payment of money out of the treasury without any author- ity, and it ought not to have been done. This will not remedy that. It will not prevent a vio- lation of the Constitution. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Unfortunately for me, as was said by the gentleman from Stark [Mr. Pease] the other day, when I desired an expia- tion of some language used by him, I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, of course, it is not to be supposed that anything which may be urged by me in response to the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], should be regarded of any force. It sounds to me very strangely, indeed, to learn that, if we say a law shall not be passed except by bill, it deprives the General Assembly from ever passing any joint resolutions whatever. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] says that it does that — that you might as well strike joint resolution out of your Article; as there will be no possibility of passing such a resolu- tion, if you insert this provision in the Consti- tution. Mr. WEST. Which have the effect of law. Mr. POND. I was going to ask what would be the effect of a joint resolution, then? Mr. HITCHCOCK. It is because I am not a lawyer, and want to find out, that these expla- nations are sought. Let me say, right here, to members of this Convention, that, although there are very few of us on this floor that can- not understand these things, for the reason that we are not lawyers, there are a great many people in the State of Ohio who are not lawyers, and it may be just as difficult for them to un- derstand these things as it is for us upon this floor who are not of the profession. It is not a very strange thing which is pro- posed. Let me read from the first section which has just been adopted by the Convention in Pennsylvania and ratified by the people of that State. The first section of the Legislative Article reads : “ No law shall be passed except by bill.” It is not exactly in the same lan- guage, but certainly has the same meaning that is intended to be conveyed by the amendment proposed to this section. Mr. POWELL. Let me suggest, that the section which was just read leaves out the word “resolution,” that we have the difficulty about. There is no “ resolution ” there. Mr. HITCHCOCK. That may be very true, but that makes no difference. The people of Pennsylvania, by indorsing this Constitution, concluded that it is better that the word reso- lution shall not be named in their Constitution at all ; but I presume that the General Assem- bly of that State will be able to pass joint reso- lutions, whether it be so named or not, although they do say that “ no law shall be passed except by bill.” If gentlemen will turn to the Con- stitutions of other States, they will find this identical provision. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] and the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond] cited instances in which joint resolutions might be law. There is no doubt that members of the General Assembly by joint resolution are directed, and that officers of the State maybe directed to do certain acts. This may be law — a rule of action to those thus directed, but such direction cannot be regarded as coming within the term law , as we ordinarily understand that term, as the statute laws of the State. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] will admit, and the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond] will also admit, that not a dollar can be paid out of the State treasury under that directory power of the Legislature, unless the money therefor had been appropriated by the General Assembly, with all the forms of law. It seems to me that the illustrations adduced by the gentlemen have no bearing upon this question at all. There may be no necessity for the amendment; but the general expres- sionio f opinion upon this floor, has been that laws shall only be enacted by bill. In carrying out that purpose, the words, “ having the effect of law,” where they occurred in connection with, “joint resolutions,” were stricken from the ninth section. The general expression of opinion on the part of the Con- vention has been, that there should be no sort of indorsement given by this Convention to the idea that a law could be passed by resolution. It was in carrying out this same view, and after consultation with the Chairman of the Com- mittee, that this amendment was introduced. Mr. TUTTLE. Only a word in aid of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], who modestly says that he is not a lawyer. 1 wish to say that I think there may be a great many joint resolutions that are not law within the ordinary definition of law, and that the proper office of a joint resolution should be something which is not law. I am not very fresh in my reading of that particular part of Blackstone which defines what a municipal law is. Mr. POND. If a joint resolution may be passed that is not a law, then what effect or value has it? Mr. TUTTLE. If the gentleman will wait a few minutes, I will give him my ideas upon that subject. If I remember, Blackstone among other things, in defining what a municipal law is, and illustrating it, says it is distinguished among other things, from an order which is something that is transient and temporary in its operations. I shall not undertake to give his language ; but I undertake to say from my rec- ollection of it that, if gentlemen will turn to it, they will find that he makes exactly the distinction between a law that is a rule of civil conduct, permanent in its character, and the 1176 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Powell, Tuttle, Root, Scribner, Hitchcock, etc. [108th [Saturday, mere order which derives its effect from the supreme power of the State indeed, and is supported by it, but is temporary in its charac- ter, and is not a municipal law. Mr. POWELL. As temporary and transient. Mr. TUTTLE. Yes; that is "the difference; and I think, Mr. President, that this Constitu- tion should be such as not to obliterate that distinction, so as to enable the Legislature, un- der the guise and under the name of joint reso- lutions, to do this thing which we only mean shall be done with solemnity, and in the form prescribed for the passage of a statute law. I think you need but to look over the joint resolutions that are passed by the Legis- lature, at almost any session, to find instances where that has been done, under the form of joint resolutions, which, if it should continue to be done, would be an abuse gross enough to subvert the entire policy which you are seeking to incorporate into this Constitution ; and by means of which you propose to furnish protec- tion againstthis species of legislation, by which great abuses creep in; by which the public moneys are subverted to improper purposes; by which men are no longer held to their trusts, but are able to bend or otherwise seduce mem- bers from the true line of their duty. Mr. ROOT. I understood the gentleman to say, that the distinction between a joint resolu- tion and a law, is, that one is temporary, and the other permanent in its effect. Mr. TUTTLE. I do not think I did say that ; but I said that Blackstone’s distinction between a rule which is permanent — something more than temporary and transient in its application — and which he says is municipal law, and that which is only an order, transient and temporary in its operation. It seems to me that there is ample scope for the use of joint resolutions outside of that which is distinguished in the books as municipal law. Mr. ROOT, If I understand the gentleman, I would like to inquire whether he deems — The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The gentle- man’s time is up. Mr. SCRIBNER. It occurs to me that the language of the Pennsylvania provision is pref- erable to that embraced in the amendment of- fered by the delegate from Geauga [Mr. Hitch- cock]. I would be glad to hear that read once more. The Secretary read : “All enactments of law shall be by bill. Bills may orig- inate in either House, but may be altered, amended or re- jected in the other.” Mr. SCRIBNER. I move to amend the amendment by inserting these words: “No law shall be passed except by bill.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. If I may be allowed, I shall accept the amendment of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. It will remove all question as to the form of the amendment. Upon the amendment of Mr. Scribner, as ac- cepted by Mr.- Hitchcock, the yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted — yeas 50, nays 11, as follows: Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Albright, Baber, Beer, Bishop, Bos- worth, Burns, Carbery, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cook, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Dorsey, Foran, Greene, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Humphreville, Kerr, Layton, Mc- Bride, McCormick, Miller, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Phellis, Philips, Powell, Root, Russell of Muskingum, Sample, Scofield, Scribner, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Towns- lev, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Yoorhis, Waddle, Watson, Weaver, White of Hocking, Wilson, Woodbury, Young of Champaign — 50. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Adair, Blose, Doan, Hale, Herron, Neal, Pond, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Yoris, West— 11. So the amendment was agreed to. The Secretary read section sixteen, as fol- lows : “Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on three different days, unless, in case of urgency, three- fourths of the members elected to the House in which it shall be pending, shall, by a vote of yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the Journal, dispense with this rule; but the reading of a bill on its final passage shall in no case be dispensed with. No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; and no law shall be revived or amended, unless the new act contain the entire act revived or the section or sec- tions amended; and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.” Mr. POWELL. I move that the section which was printed under my motion last eve- ning be added as an addition to section sixteen. The Secretary read : “No law shall go into effect earlier than the ninetieth day after the terminati >n of the session of the Legisla- ture at which it was enacted, unless by a subsequent vote of two-thirds of each House some earlier day may be specified; and no law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pending at the time of the passage thereof.” Mr. POWELL. This amendment proposes two important principles to be incorporated into this section. One is with reference to the time when a law takes effect after it is passed by the Legislature. The other is to prevent a matter which is often a subject of great com- plaint, namely, that a law is amended or adopted by the Legislature that changes the mode of proceedings in a case then pending, and defeats a person’s right of action. Both of these matters are of great importance, and are often complained of, and should be corrected by this Convention. A law takes effect immediately upon its pas- sage, and very frequently it is a matter of great injustice to some portions of our community in regard to a law being passed and taking effect before it is known to the person who is sub- jected to it. It is proposed by this section that it shall be delayed ninety days before it shall take effect. Some time should be allowed, in every case, before a law comes into operation, that every person may become acquainted with the fact that such a law exists. It is proposed here to make it ninety days. I think ninety days is proper. The Legislature will generally adjourn some time in April, and the laws go into effect in July or August. Mr. ROOT. Would the gentleman have that limitation extended to the operation of bills making appropriations? Mr. POWELL. No, sir. Mr. ROOT. I do not see any exception ; but it strikes me the gentleman could hardly have contemplated that. Mr. POWELL. I do not think it should apply to the operation of such laws. Perhaps, Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 7 , 1874 .] Powell, Mueller, Watson, Tuttle, Scribner. 1177 it would be well to put in an exception with regard to the operation of acts appropriating money; but I do insist upon it, that from my experience for many years, and the complaints from the people in various parts of the State, that a law had been passed and put in force be- fore the persons affected by it were aware that such a law had been passed, they had violated it, and were made subject to some sanction, be- cause they had done something contrary to law, of which they were not advised; because it went into effect so soon after its passage that they had no opportunity of knowing its exist- ence. This amendment contains a provision in it, that by a vote of the General Assembly, an act may take effect as the Legislature may di- rect; and this would obviate the question put to me by the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root]. But, I think it would be well also to amend it by putting the exception in as to appropria- tions in this amendment, that it may take effect by a resolution of the Assembly. Another thing is provided for in this resolution — a mat- ter that has been frequently complained of — A person brings an action to recover some right that is due him at the time, and that depends upon the mode of proceeding or the evidence in the case. A lawyer on the opposite side is, per- haps, elected to the Legislature, and immedi- ately gets the Legislature to pass a law to alter the rule of evidence, or the mode of proceeding, in order to defeat that — this very thing of members of the Legislature procuring the pas- sage of a law altering the proceedings in a case, or the evidence in a case for the purpose of defeating a suit that has been brought. That has been frequently done in Ohio. Those mem- bers of the Convention who have been members of the Legislature, know that is the case. I, therefore, think that this amendment should be adopted as a part of section sixteen. I would propose an amendment, after the word “ speci- fied” in the third line, insert “ except laws ap- propriating money. ” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will then read : “ No laws shall go into effect earlier than ninety days after the end of the session of the Legislature at which they are enacted, unless by a subsequent vote of two-thirds of each House, some earlier day may be specified, except laws appropriating money.” Mr. POWELL. I have asked the amendment to be put in the wrong place. I ask that these words be in the line after the word “ enacted” in the second line. Mr. MUELLER. I would suggest that the amendment be inserted after the word “ law” in the first line. Mr. WATSON. Let us get the amendment in its proper place, and then have it read, for I think there is great merit in it. I think the proper place is after the word “law” in the first line. Mr. MUELLER. I would say “ no law, ex- cept such as appropriates money, shall go into effect &c.” The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the section as proposed to be amended. The Secretary read : “No law, except such as appropriates money, shall go into effect earlier than ninety days after the term of the session of the Legislature at which it was enacted, unless by a subsequent vote ol two-thirds of each House some earlier day may be specified; and no law shall apply to the proceedings in any suit pending at the time ot the passage thereof.” Mr. POWELL. I accept the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the amendment as now amended. Mr. TUTTLE. I desire to inquire whether this is not divisible. There are two proposi- tions. One in relation to the time when laws shall go into operation, and another in relation to what they may be made applicable; and while I am inclined to think the first provision beneficial, I should have very strong objections to the last clause in its present shape. I move to strike out from the amendment as proposed, all that follows after the word “specified” in the third line. Mr. WATSON. I should regret very much to see this stricken out. In the last clause of this section consists the great merit, or one of the merits of the provision. It has been the habit, for many years, of gentlemen getting into the Legislature to legislate their cases, and to change remedies, and the rule of evidence. The object of this is to establish a stability in practice, something that we may rely on. A man quietly sitting in his office, intending no harm, may find himself legislated out of his case, by a mischievous politician, who happens to be nominally a lawyer and gets into the Leg- islature, and for this reason, I regard this as a kind of sheet-anchor; as one of the things we should adhere to. I should extremely regret to see it stricken out. It is one of the great merits of this provision, and I do not know anything that has been proposed in this Con- vention that contains more merit than this sim- ple little thing in these four lines. It contains within the four lines a merit that will chal- lenge comparison with anything that has been offered in this Convention. Mr. SCRIBNER. I find myself compelled to disagree with the gentleman from Huron [Mr. Watson], for whose opinion I have very great respect. I agree with him that much vicious legislation has been done in the manner pointed out by him. It has been too often the case that acts, having reference to some pending action, have gone through the Legislature. The rem- edy for that should be found in the supervisory action of the proper Committees of the respective Houses. With the clause proposed to be stricken out retained in this amendment, it would be impossible to change the law regulating the practice in our courts, in any respect, so as to reach pending cases. For instance, if a law were passed abolishing second trials in our courts, the result would be that, as to all cases pending, second trials would, nevertheless, be had. If a law were passed directing that the supreme court should be relieved of the duty of considering mere questions of fact, or from re- viewing the findings of a jury upon rnereques- tions of fact, as to the mass of cases pending in the several courts of the State, it would be ut- terly inoperative. It would be impossible, as to pending cases, with this provision adopted, to relieve the supreme court, in any respect, of any portion of the burden which now devolves i upon it. If the practice act were so far modified as to | relieve the supreme court of the necessity o |"L08th 1178 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Scribner, Cunningham, West, Beer, Watson, Powell, etc. considering whether petitions in error should he filed in that court, as to the pending cases, it would be impossible to relieve the court of that burden and duty. I might go on and enu- merate a great many cases in which it might be very desirable to change and modify our practice, but where the legislation would be wholly ineffectual with this provision adopted. I might instance in criminal cases, a statute that has been in force for the last five or six years, allowing criminals to testify in their own behalf. With a provision of this character adopted, such an enactment might be held not to apply to criminal cases pending. Although I have no doubt that a great deal of good would be accomplished by preventing the vicious sys- tem of legislation which my friend has referred to, I think the disadvantages would very far outweigh the advantages; and, therefore, I feel myself compelled to oppose the motion of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell.] Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Speaking of the pas- sage of the amendment to the criminal code allowing persons charged with crime to testify, I would ask if that law was not procured for the simple purpose of cases then pending? Mr. SCRIBNER. I think not. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am so informed — that it was passed for the purpose of permitting an individual who was indicted for manslaugh- ter or murder committed in this house. Mr. SCRIBNER. I have some knowledge of the history of that legislation, and although it may have been supported by the friends of the accused party in that case, and I believe it was favored by the friends of that party, I am very confident that the introduction and support of the measure had nothing to do with that case. The bill was introduced into the Senate by my present partner, Frank H. Hurd, and its pas- sage was urged by him, and was eventually se- cured by him; and I am very certain that he had no reference, in insisting upon its passage, to the case that has been referred to here. Mr. WEST. Is it not a fact that that provi- sion had been urged at one or two sessions be- fore it passed ? Mr. SCRIBNER. I believe that was the case. Mr. BEER. I introduced the bill myself the winter before. Mr. WATSON. This is a matter that I re- gard of too much importance to make a strug- gle over. I have no desire, as far as I am con- cerned, to impress anything upon this provision ; but I do regard it as a matter of importance, and I think that we ought to work out of it something of benefit to the Convention. If there is anything that the gentleman from Lu- cas [Mr. Scribner], can do to modify it, I trust he will do it. Mr WEST. Will the gentleman permit a suggestion ? Mr. WATSON. Certainly. Mr. WEST. I doubt whether we can throw that provision into shape in which it will be safe while sitting here in the Convention. If there is an amendment offered, it should be re- committed when the Article is recommitted to the Committee, to see if anything can be worked out of it. Sitting here, I doubt whether we can get anything that is entirely safe. It is [Saturday, of too much importance entirely to go through hastily. Mr. WATSON. I think so myself. I think it outfit not to go through hastily ; but it ought to be matured. Mr. POWELL. Will the gentleman from Lu- cas [Mr. Scribner], state whether it would not satisfy his ideas to add to the end of it these words, “so as to change the right of action ?’* It is the action, not the principle. Mr. TUTTLE. So as to take away the right of action. Mr. POWELL. It is, that we shall not pass any law so as to change the right of action. Mr. PAGE. That will take away the whole effect of it. It would be worth nothing with that amendment. Mr. POWELL. Let it read this way ; “No law shall apply to a proceeding in a suit pend- ing at the time of the passage thereof so as to change the right of action.” Mr. HORTON. I want to make a suggestion. 1 think we ought to have, somewhere in the Constitution, a provision of a law regarding a crime should not relieve a party, who had pre- viously committed a crime, of his liability. I do not know whether this is the proper place to put it in or not. Mr. WATSON. I think, Mr. President, that that thing, as it now stands on the statutes, is fully established. I think there is no trouble on this subject. The report of the cases will convince my friend that, in so far as criminals are concerned, there is no trouble, and there is no need of further provision. I would say that it is a matter in which we are so deeply interested that I would be very glad to have the co-opera- tion of all, that we might get it up in proper shape, and, if it is necessary, to make a fur- ther provision in relation to criminals, let it be done. Mr. HORTON. They have trouble in other States, frequently. Mr. WATSON. I think hardly in Ohio. I think the matter is sufficiently established by a provision of the law. Mr. HORTON. We want to put it in the Con- stitution. Mr. WATSON. It is sufficiently provided for in the law. It may be that, so far as that is concerned, it would be better to be settled bj T a provision in the fundamental law. If that be so, I am ready to co-operate with the gentleman; but I think this other matter is a thing of so much importance that we should all agree, and act upon a provision that will be satisfactory. Mr. TUTTLE. I have no doubt there have been abuses such as have been suggested by the gentleman from Huron [Mr. Watson] and that a wise provision might be made in the Constitu- tion to remedy them. But I feel very much in accord with the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] upon this subject: that whatever might be done in that direction, cannot well be done here. I think it ought to be the result of the careful considera- tion in the Committee, and I hope the matter will take that turn; but, as I suppose it is in order and with a view to suggest some things which I think ought to have the consideration I of the Committee, and which ought to be re- l ferred to them, I shall add a few words in addi- THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1179 Day.] February 7, 1874.] Tuttle. tion to what has been said by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. There are very many things which would come within the provisions of this Constitution, as it now is, which 1 do not think the gentleman from Huron [Mr. Watson] would decide to exclude. Many things in the same line, sug- gested by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], remedies provided, for instance, in relation to the impanelling of juries, and afford- ing safeguards to parties. Many such have been adopted recently. They are constantly being provided. Whenever experience points out the necessity of a new provision, it is the proper province of the Legislature to enact them, and nobody can be harmed by their ap- plication to a cause pending at the time of in- troducing the remedy, any more than by their application to suits brought afterwards. There- fore, 1 think that parties in suits pendingought, in such cases, to have the benefit of such reme- dies, though one party or the other might ob- ject, just as much as in another suit that is atterwards commenced. And there are some further things, Mr. President, I want to sug- gest in that direction, which, if the Committee should take under consideration, I hope they will consider. I might say, however, in relation to the crim- inal statute referred to, that was suggested and passed for the benefit or at the instance of some person indicted in the city of Cincinnati, that if that was so, I do not see what there was in it that would militate against the view expressed by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. If the man had already been indicted in the city of Cincinnati, and it was known by his friends that be could give very material evi- dence sustaining his innocence, and the Legis- lature and the public were agreed that it ought to be the privilege of the accused party to testify in his own favor, I cannot see why any man, satisfied of his innocence, and of his ina- bility thoroughly to manifest it without his own testimony, should not be justified to urge upon the Legislature the enactment of a rule which all pronounce desirable and safe, al- though it might be material to his defense, and although it might be the only means of saving him from the gallows. I do not see how the urgency of the case could make any difference in the world. But beyond what is suggested with regard to mere modes of proceeding, I think there are other considerations that ought to receive the attention of the Committee or of the Conven- tion, if it shall act upon it without reference. For instance. I have before me a statute that was made in 1851, entitled “An act for the relief of sureties in certain cases.” Turn to the third section of it, if you have any notion of consult- ing it, and you will find it is made especially applicable to suits pending, and if you turn to the report of the case of Atcheson vs. Miller, reported in the Eighteenth Ohio Reports, and then turn to the case of the same parties, re- ported is the Second Ohio State Reports, and he case of Gilbert vs. Sutliff, in the Third Ohio State Reports, you will find that that law was very likely made for the express purpose of affecting a suit that was then pending. That it was the only means, indeed, by which the parties were enabled, in their own favor, to avail themselves of the most undoubted justice, in their own behalf, and against the decisions of the supreme court, which statute was never- theless so just that no man has ever lifted his voice against it since, or attempted to repeal it, and so just that, while it was assailed as un- constitutional in the supreme court, the judges of that court expressed their approval of the principles that were involved in it, and as ap- plicable to the case before them. Again, we have in this proposition, as we have in our present Constitution, this provis- ion, and I trust it will be retained here : “The General Assembly shall have no power to pass re- troactive laws, or laws impairing the'obligations of con- tracts, but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings arising out of their want of conformity to the laws of this State.” If gentlemen should turn, as they very likely have no need to turn, to the case of Purcell vs. Goshorn, reported in the Nineteenth Ohio Re- ports, they will find a case in which it was de- termined that, under the then existing laws, the complainant in that suit had no remedy. His complaint was that he had bought a piece of land owned in the right of a married woman, and that this married woman, in conjunction with her husband, had undertaken to convey that land to him', but, by mistake, the deed was said to be inoperative as against the wife. And under the law of the State, as it was then, the supreme court determined that he had no rights against the title of the wife. After this present Constitution, however, was adopted, the Legis- lature, in looking at the state of the case, in 1857, passed a statute exactly meeting the claim of Bishop Purcell in that case, and, under that statute, he instituted a suit against the husband and wife, and the courts of this county, and, afterward, the supreme court of the State, de- termined that, notwithstanding the decision against him in the supreme court, in the first instance, and notwithstanding the defect of the law which, it was acknowledged, existed at that time, yet that, by the operation of this constitu- tional provision, together with the statute I have referred to, he had a right of action, and a right to perfect the deed, which, by mistake, had, so far, been inoperative, and was entitled to the simple justice of having the bene- fit of that contract which he had made with Goshorn and his wife, and which they, for a long time, supposed they had fully carried out by their deed. Suppose that the defect in that case had been discovered before the termina- tion of the first suit, and that the Legislature, being authorized to do so by the Constitution, had provided a law enabling the courts to carry that deed into effect just as they afterwards did; I see no reason why it should not justly have been made to apply in that suit. Why, it should have been necessary, for instance, that before he could have the benefit of that law and that justice in his favor, it should be necessary for him, at great cost and expense, to discon- tinue all the proceedings in that suit, and travel precisely the same road over again to accom- plish what he might just as well have accom- plished in the first suit. Under this Constitu- 1180 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [108th Tuttle, Powell, Root, Baber, Scofield, etc. [Saturday, tion, the supreme court have told us that the Legislature have not exhausted their power to make provision for other errors. Cases may again arise which may need the intervention of the legislative power. The legislative power may be exerted in their behalf, and if it should happen that any suits are pending at the time tnat should need that intervention, why should they not have the benefit of it? Why should the party who has the suit pending be obliged to discontinue that suit, pay all the costs that have been incurred — attorneys’ fees and ex- penses of other description — and be subject to travel the ground over again, only for the pur- pose of arriving at the same point, where he can avail himself of the benefit of such legisla- tion? Mr. President, I think we should not go so far as that. I agree that it is not just that a man should be legislated out of court, when he has honestly and properly come into court. I doubt that you can do it as the Constitution now is, though provisions may be made which may unjustly embarrass. In any provision touching that matter, I would provide against any unreasonable restric- tion or burden that should, in effect, defeat a man in the prosecution of any just claim. I would say that legislative acts, by which rights are to be created or cut off, should not affect proceedings that are pending, and should not be applicable to them. It seems to me that if it might sometimes prevent injustice in a great many instances, it would cause a great deal of injustice to be done. Mr. POWELL. I am about to make a motion. I shall, previous to making that motion, how- ever, say to the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], that the reason in the case of Purcell that the decision was rendered, was, that he had the equity with him, and he filed his bill in equity. Mr. TUTTLE. Was it, nevertheless, an equity that was utterly invaluable at law by any known mode? Mr. POWELL. Certainly, but the Legislature would not have passed that law, if it was not for the equity which helped him out. I have consulted among the friends of this amendment, and have come to this conclusion, after consulting them, that I shall ask leave to withdraw this for the present, and we shall get together and shape it in some such way as it will be acceptable to all parties who are friendly to it, until I bring it in at some subsequent time. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state, that without general consent, it will not be possible to return to this section, unless the Convention should consent that it be passed over in a particular way. Mr. TUTTLE. I ask that this section be passed over for that purpose, and I will bring it in at an early day next week. Mr. BEER. Before this section is passed, I desire to offer an amendment. The Secretary read : After the word “title”, in line six, insert the following: “but if any subject shall be embraced in the act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.” Mr. ROOT. I believe we have arrived at a good stopping point. We are not ready to pro- ceed in a matter of very great importance. I believe time as well as reflection upon this sub- ject, may be secured by an adjournment. I, therefore, move that the Convention adjourn. Upon this question a division was called for, and being had, resulted — affirmative 25, nega- tive 24. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no quorum voting. Mr. BABER. I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. Can we not adjourn without a quorum ? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is true, but the yeas and nays were called before the Chair made any announcement. Mr. ROWLAND. I object to the call of the yeas and nays. The call was sustained. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would it be in order now to demand a call of the House ? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Not while a motion to adjourn is pending. Upon the motion to adjourn, the yeas and nays being taken, the yeas were 30, nays 31, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Beer, Bosworth, Clark of Jefferson, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Dorsey, Herron, Horton, Kerr, Layton, Miner, Mitchener, Mul- len, Page, Philips, Pond, Powell, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Sam- ple, Scofield, Scribner, Smith of Shelby, Thomp- son, Tuttle, Van Yoorhis, Waddle, Watson, Woodbury — 30. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Baber, Bishop, Blose, Burns, Coats, Cook, Foran, Greene, Hale, Hitch- cock, Hostetter, Humphreville, McBride, Mc- Cormick, Miller, Mueller, Neal, Phellis, Pratt, Rickly, Townsend, Tulloss, Tyler, Voorhes, Yoris, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Wil- son, President — 31. So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. PRATT. 1 demand a call of the House. The Roll was called and fifty-eight members answered to their names, as follows : Messrs. Albright, Baber, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Bosworth, Burns, Clark of Jefferson, Coats, Cook, Cunningham, Dorsey, Foran, Greene, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hitchcock, Horton, Hostet- ter, Humphreville, Kerr, Layton, McBride, Mc- Cormick, Miller, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Page, Phellis, Philips, Pond, Powell, Pratt, Rickly, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Rus- sell of Muskingham, Scofield, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Yoorhis, Yoorhes, Voris, Waddle, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Wilson, Woodbury, Presiden [-“58 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques- tion is upon the motion of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] that the sixteenth sec- tion be passed informally. Mr. PRATT. The call of the House is still pending. Mr. TUTTLE. I raise a point of order, that further proceedings under the call have been dispensed with by proceeding to other business. Mr. SCOFIELD. I move that all further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Tyler, Baber, Clark of J., Humphreville. 1181 Day.] February 7, 1874.] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is upon the motion of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. Mr. TYLER. I move the Convention ad- journ. Mr. BABER. I call for the yeas and nays. Objection being made, the call was sustained, fourteen members rising to second it. The yeas and nays were taken, and resulted — yeas 30, nays 29, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Bos worth, Clark of Jefferson, Coats, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Dorsey, Herron, Humphreville, Kerr, Layton, McCormick, Mitchener, Mullen, Neal, Page, Philips, Powell, Rowland, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Mus- kingum, Sample, Scofield, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Tuttle, Tyler, Yoris, Waddle, Wood- bury, President— 30. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Albright, Baber, Beer, Bishop, Blose, Burns, Cook, Foran, Greene, Hale, Hill, Hitch- cock, Horton, Hostetter, McBride, Miller, Muel- ler, Phellis, Pond, Pratt, Rickly, Townsend, Tulloss, Van Voorhis, Yoorhes, Weaver, West, White of Hocking, Wilson — 29. So the Convention, (at 4: 30 p. m.) adjourned. ONE HUNDRED AND NINTH DAY OF THE CONVENTION. FORTY-SEYENTH DAY OF THE ADJOURNED SESSION. HALF-PAST NINE O’CLOCK A. M. The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- journment. Prayer by Rev. Eben Halley, of the Seventh Street Congregational Church, Cincinnati. The Roll was called, and 76 members answer- ed to their names. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence was asked and obtained, for Mr. Smith, of Highland, for to-day ; and for Mr. Philips, for an indefinite length of time. The Journal was read and approved. MEMORIAL AND PROTEST. Mr. CLARK, of Jefferson, presented the me- morial of Rev. H. Y. Leiper, and 124 other cit- izens of Jefferson county, praying for such a provision in the Constitution as will indicate this State to be a Christian Commonwealth. Also, the protest of H. IJeberling, and 114 other citizens of Jefferson county, remonstra- ting against the incorporation of religious opin- ions and beliefs in the Constitution. Which were referred to the Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS — APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES. The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires the Secretary to make a report. The SECRETARY. The Chair reports the following appointments to fill vacancies on Standing Committees, occasioned by his with- drawal : On Committee on Schedule, Mr. Burns. On Committee on the Judicial Department, Mr. Miner. On Committee on Revision, Mr. Herron. Monday, February 9, 1874. ORDER OF THE DAY. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I move that we now proceed to the order of the day. Which motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question before the Convention, at the adjournment on Saturday, was the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] to section 16, and the motion of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], to strike out from that amend- ment the last paragraph. The amendment of the gentleman from Delaware is as follows: “ No law, except such as appropriates money, shall go into effect earlier than the ninetieth day after the termination of the session of the Legislature at which it was enacted, unless, by a subsequent vote of two-thirds of the House, some earlier day may be specified ; and no law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pending at the time of the passage thereof.” The motion of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] is to strike out “and no law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pending at the time of the passage thereof.” Mr. POWELL. I propose the following as a substitute : Amend section 16 by adding to the section the follow- ing: ‘ No law, except such as appropriates money, shall go into effect until n nety days after the passage thereof, un- less an earlier date shall be named iu the bill. And no law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pending at the time of the pas age thereof, so as t<* defeat the action or change the rights of the parties, exi ting at the time of the commencement thereof.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the substitute. Is the Convention ready for the question ? Mr. BURNS. I call for the reading of the substitute. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from 1182 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Hale, Cunningham, Humpreville. [Monday, Delaware [Mr. Powell] proposes to withdraw his amendment offered on Saturday and substi- tute what the Secretary will read. The Secretary then read the proposed sub- stitute. The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, the gentleman will have leave to withdraw his amendment and offer the substitute. MEMBERS. “Leave!” “Leave!” Mr. HALE. I simply heard the amendment read from the Secretary’s desk ; but it strikes me that the first part of it is wholly without effect. It provides that a bill, or law, shall not go into effect until ninety days after its passage, unless it be named in the bill. Now, what is that but leaving it entirely to the discretion of the General Assembly to name in the bill, as they now do, the time when it shall go into effect? It is saying, that unless the Legisla- ture shall fix a day on which the law shall go into effect, it shall take effect in ninety days; which is leaving it wholly in the discretion of the Legislature to say when that bill shall go into effect. It seems to me to be of so little impor- tance that it ought not to go into the Constitu- tion. Again, Mr. President, I believe that this matter should be left to legislative discretion. I do not believe that it is of sufficient impor- tance to make it a constitutional provision. We leave it with the Legislature to say what rem- edy is needed, and we ought to leave it to them to say when the remedy should go into effect. I do not believe that there is any merit in that branch of the substitute offered. Now, one word in regard to the balance of that substitute, which provides that no law shall affect existing suits. It is claimed that there is great merit in that branch of the sub- stitute. I fail to see it. I do not believe that the experience of lawyers upon this floor will accord with the experience of the gentleman from Huron [Mr. Watson], and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. It may be that the very necessity for the law may be shown by the suit that is pending; the very want of the statute may grow out of an existing suit — showing that without the remedy that is pro- posed, great injustice will be done. I call the attention of gentlemen here, to a single fact. We learned, in the discussion of another Article, a few days since, that in the great northwest, they are in the habit of ditch- ing, and gentlemen know that the trustees of townships and commissioners of counties are empowered to lay out and construct ditches. Well, now, those bodies, not being familiar with the law, frequently make mistakes; and in the case of some ditches constructed under the statutes existing, through some defect in the record, the tax levied for the construction of the ditches, could not be collected. A large land owner brings suit to restrain the collec- tion of the tax. What is to be done? As the matter then stands, he is entitled to his injunc- tion, and the man who has got the benefit of the ditch, goes free from any expense. That very state of things existed in 1864. The Leg- islature passed a statute remedying that defect and providing simply that in this class of cases, the Court before whom the case was pending, should not, by injunction, restrain the collec- tion of the tax ; but should set aside the pro- ceedings by which the tax was levied, take jurisdiction of the case, and make such orders in the premises as were equitable and just. They paid what was just and right and made the man who had received the benefit of the ditch, pay that which was equitable and right. It simply provided the remedy that the party was entitled to; and it seems to me just and proper. And I believe that if we could bring before the Convention these cases where the power of the Legislature has been called upon to legislate in a way that should affect existing cases, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, it has been in furtherance of justice and against injustice. I do not believe, as I said before, there is any merit in the proposition of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], and I should regret to see it adopted. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I understand it, the object to be effected by the clause that is first objected to, by the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. Hale], is this: commonly, the rule is that unless otherwise provided lor in the bill, it shall take effect from and after its passage. That is the general, common law rule; the ex- ception is, that it may be provided in the bill that the law shall take effect at some other time. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I suppose the gentleman is aware that, under the statutes of this State, when no time is fixed, a law takes effect on the 1st day of May following its passage. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes ; there is a rule to that effect, but is it a rule fixed by statute. This provides a specific time ; no matter when passed, the time shall be ninety days. It is a modification of our present law. Mr. HALE. The statute we have now is not constitutional. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes ; and the Legisla- ture frequently runs into April, and close to May. If I mistake not, in the last twenty years, it has run into May, so that, substantially, little is accomplished by the rule. Now, that which is sought by the gentleman from Dela- ware [Mr. Powell] is, that unless the Legisla- ture, which, of course, will be governed by fit reasons, provides specifically that the law shall go into effect before or after that time, then, that ninety days shall transpire from the time of the passage of the bill until it shall go into effect; and it seems to me that it is a wise provision. This gives a specific time, and puts all laws on an equal footing. It will then be for the member of the Legislature introducing a bill to satisfy the Legislature of the propriety of a departure from the general rule that is provided for in the. Constitution. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. How many billsdoes the gentleman know of that have ever passed the General Assembly without a clause fixing the time when it shall take effect? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 1 never was a member of the Legislature. 1 do not know that 1 ever looked to find out. It may be there have been ten in all, in the history of the State. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I know of but one. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I submit to the gen- tleman that it does not affect the principle. The next objection that the gentleman makes 1183 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] Cunningham, Hale, Tuttle, West. is to the last clause : “ and no law shall apply to the proceedings of a suit pending at the time of the passage thereof, so as to defeat, the action, or change the rights of the parties, existing at the time of the change thereof.” Why, that is the assertion of a principle that runs throughout our legislation, in so far as property rights are affected. Why, I may purchase a piece of land at a tax sale, and, if I did it at a certain period in the history of this State, the lapse of a period of seven years would have settled every ques- tion of right that might have grown out of that proceeding. Undoubtedly, sir, except the rights of minor heirs. Mr. HALE. Do you mean tax sale? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; by the act of 1849. Mr. HALE. That was under a judicial sale. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir, and a tax sale. I had a case of that sort. 1 know I took advantage of the application of the rule to the case. I want to know why you shall not protect the rights of persons who go into court, relying upon their rights at the commencement of the action ? The gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], on Saturday, submitted a criticism upon the original amendment proposed here, the force of which the author of this proposition and other gentlemen, who looked with favor upon it, con- ceded, and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], withdrew it in order to meet the crit- icism then made. Now, this, as I understand it, remedies the ob- jection. It simply provides that no one shall go into the Legislature, pending a suit, and procure legislation by which his case is im- proved, and his opponent’s interfered with. Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman permit a question ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Certainly. Mr. HALE. Does the gentleman mean to say, that under the Constitution as it stands, this statute of 1849 could be changed by the Legis- lature, so as to affect the rights acquired un- der it ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman repeat his question ? Mr. HALE. Do you mean to say that under that statute of 1849, it would be competent for the Legislature to affect the rights of parties by legislation ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Why, they did ; and it was recognized and enforced by the courts. The statute of 1849, provided for settling the question of title and limiting the rights of par- ties to seven years from the time the right of action accrued. Mr. HALE. Now, the point I want to get at is this : supposing that after the seven years are passed, the Legislature should repeal that law, would your rights be determined under the law repealed or as it existed after that was re- pealed ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Under the law that was in force at the time of the purchase, or ju- dicial sale, or whatever it might be — of course. Mr. HALE. Then you would not have it affect a sale of that kind ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Notatall,sir. I wish to have all legislation carried on on that prin- ciple. Mr. President, within my own personal ex- perience, in a suit in which I was interested as attorney, it was sought, deliberately, to legislate me out of court; and we are, to-day, trying its force and effect in the supreme court on writ of error. We are trying the force and effect of the bill that was passed and intended to affect the rights of my clients in a railroad case. Mr. POND. In 1866 the Legislature passed an act fixing it substantially in the form as now in the statutes. If the gentleman will allow me, I will read it as it is only a few lines : “Whenever a statute is repealed or amended, such re- peal or amendment shall in no manner affect pending actions, prosecutions or proceedi gs, civil or criminal; nor causes of such acti *n, prosecution or proce ding, ex- isting at the time of such amendment or repeal, unless otherwise expressly provided in the amending or repeal- ing act.” That stands as the law now. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Suppose the Legisla- ture, to-morrow, concludes to repeal that law, and so you go on, ad infinitum. If the princi- ple upon which this law is founded is a proper one, and it is, let us incorporate it into the fun- damental law. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? The proposition now made is that the Legislature shall have no power, as I under- stand, to make the law apply to proceedings that are pending : is it not so ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, no. It is, that it shall have no power to make it apply so as to change the rights of parties as they were exist- ing at the time of the commencement of the suit. They may change, for example, the rule of evidence; but they shall not affect rights as they existed at the time of the commencemen of the suit. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the substitute of the gentleman from Del- aware [Mr. Powell], in place of the amend- ment offered on Saturday and withdrawn by consent of the Convention. Mr. WEST. On last Saturday evening this matter was up, and I had occasion to suggest then, that, from my information on the subject, I doubted whether the proposition could be put in a definite form so as to be satisfactory, during the hubbub and excitement of the Convention; and I subsequently, in private conversation, ex- pressed very great doubt whether it could be put in a form to be satisfactory. I have given the subject thought since then, and I am satis- fied that we ought not to incorporate the prop- osition, as it now stands, into the Constitution, for this reason : It is perfectly clear that, under the existing provisions of the old Constitution, which are certain to remain unchanged, the Legislature can have no power to pass any law affecting the rights of parties — vested rights. That is perfectly well settled. The only power the General Assembly shall have, goes to the remedy in furtherance of what is right, and the enforcement of existing right, so to speak. Now, it seems to me that power ought not to be taken away from the General Assembly. If an individual have a right which it is just should be enforced, but the remedies provided by the Legislature are insufficient to enable him to en- force or secure that right, is there any reason 1184 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. West, Cunningham, Tuttle, Burns, Powell. [109th [Monday, why the Legislature shall not pass a law per- fecting his remedy, and enabling justice to be done? It seems to me not, although the right is an existing one. Hence, the general princi- ple is correct, that the law-making power which provides the remedy ought, at all times, to be able to pass such laws as will perfect the rem- edy, or provide such remedies as will secure the right. Well, now, it is said that if a suit is com- menced, any legislation tending to secure the enjoyments of right in that suit, ought not to be made applicable to it. Let us suppose a case. Yourself and I, each of us, has a right which is precisely the same. I am exceedingly ambi- tious to bring suit to perfect my right, and, in consequence of some little defect in the remedy, I am about to be defeated; the Legislature passes an act perfecting the remedy. I may commence a suit in which it cannot be en- forced ; for it is not made applicable to my case. The next day after the law is passed, you com- mence your suit with the same right — the same principle exactly — and you can, after that, with a little legislation, have your right enforced, because you are a little tardy in bringing your suit; but I must go out of court, because I was a little hasty in bringing mine. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I submit to the gen- tleman what sort of a system of law it would be to permit an individual to adopt a principle that would tolerate the idea that an individual may commence his suit without law, and then rely upon the Legislature to give him the rem- edy afterwards? Mr. WEST. I have not claimed any such thing as that. There are such things, Mr. President, as rights and remedies, and they are distinct. The right is one thing; the legal modes of pro- cedure, by which that right may be enforced or secured to the party possessing it, are very dif- ferent things. Now, it is improper that any authority should have power, any tribunal should have power to create rights or to divest rights, or destroy rights. They exist indepen- dent of legislation. And if, by virtue of legis- lation, they have accrued and are existing rights, the Legislature ought to have the power to destroy them. But the right may often ex- ist and no remedy be provided. For example, suppose that I had lent to my friend from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] a ten dollar green- back — though I could not do it now, until the Legislature appropriates, if I were disposed to — [laughter] — and the Legislature had failed to provide a mode of bringing suit upon my contract with the gentleman from Allen. I have commenced suit. Suppose that the reme- dies were sufficient, but upon judicial investi- gation found that there was some little defect in the law of evidence, that I could not call the gentleman from Allen in to testify, and the laws do not permit me to testify in open court. In private conversation the gentleman from Allen and I would agree that he owed me the ten dollars, but I could not call him into court, and could not, by my own testimony in court, establish the indebtedness; so I must go out of court, because I cannot get the proper testi- mony. It is an honest claim, a just claim, but I cannot get witnesses in because tbe law has not provided means for their testimony. Now, I go to the Legislature of the State with my case. Although mine is an individual case then pending, there may be ten thousand other cases just like it all over the State — just like it exactly. I have investigated and ascertained the defect in the law, and have procured the passage of an act to meet all such cases. But the gentleman from Allen says it shall not ap- ply to that case of mine, because you have commenced suit on that. Is not mine just as fixed and honest a claim as any that stand on the same basis? Gentlemen, I think the legal remedies apply, although I have commenced the suit, and have found out and provided for the defect in the law. 1 know it is a great in- convenience to a lawyer prosecuting an unjust claim, to have the Legislature step in and up- trip him. I have been served that way myself, and have occasionally probably used language not provided for in the Decalogue. Mr. TUTTLE. Provided against, perhaps. Mr. WEST. But after the thing was over and I cooled down and had taken a good sleep over the matter, I could commend the law, for it was just. My adversary had justice on his side, and I did not have on mine. The Legis- lature interfered and lubricated the machinery on his side and dried mine up. I was defeated justly and properly. I lost a big fee by it, a big case and some glory; but I went out of court properly. Mr. BURNS. That’s what made you use those words. Mr. WEST. I suppose that is what makes all lawyers use such words sometimes. Well, I lost the case, but I could not condemn, but must commend the legislation that hesitates not to enforce rights and further justice. Now, that is the principle. That is all there is of it. Such legislation can only go to the remedy and not to the right itself. There is another thing [in this amendment that is not right in its present shape. It pro- vides that no law shall be enacted to defeat. That is the way it is provided now in this pro- position — that no law shall be passed, by reason of which, or in consequence of which, a party shall be defeated. That means that you may pass a law whereby a defendant shall not defeat an unjust claim prosecuted against him by the plaintiff, and you shall not pass a law by which a just claim prosecuted by a plaintiff shall be enforced by a defendant. Mr. POWELL. May I correct the gentle- man ? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. Mr. POWELL. The proposition contains no such thing. It does not contain any such thing as the gentleman represents. It is not to defeat the party; but it shall not defeat the action. There is a difference between the two. He shall not be thrust out of court; but the entire action shall remain in court. The gentleman misrepresents the whole thing. Mr. WEST. No; I do not misrepresent it. I may have misunderstood it. I know it reads that the action shall not be defeated. Mr. POWELL. Yes. Mr. WEST. Very well ; there is nothing to 1185 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9 , 1874 .] Powell, West, Mueller, Burns, Cunningham. prevent recovering and maintaining, is there? Mr. POWELL. No, sir. Mr. WEST. But it shall not apply to defeat the party. Mr. POWELL. No, sir ; that is misrepresen- tation again. Anything that will represent the rights of either party shall remain in court. It is the action and not the party. Mr. WEST. Yes; I am aware it is the action and not the party. It is the action that I am speaking of. There shall be no law passed by which to defeat the action. It shall go on, and it shall not be allowed to introduce a witness that is excluded now by reason of some disqual- ification. The gentleman’s time having expired, leave was granted for him to continue. Mr. WEST. I may misunderstand that; but the other, I think, is an inherent defect in the proposition, which ought not to apply, and the General Assembly ought to have power at all times to provide for the doing of justice. That is all. By mistake, they may sometimes do an injustice, yet generally, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, justice is done as a matter of fact, although occasionally, through misappre- hension or mistake, injustice is done. Well, one act of injustice against ninety-nine acts of justice ought not to prevail. Mr. MUELLER. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. WEST. Yes, certainly. Mr. MUELLER. Is the Legislature the proper body to correct and make a judicial de- cision ? Is it for the Legislature to decide that my case is a proper one or not? Mr. WEST. Oh, no; certainly not. Mr. MUELLER. Then the remedy you ad- vocate will gain nothing. I think the Legisla- ture has nothing to do with my special case. That is all the difficulty we labor under — be- cause they do so much to decide cases judi- cially. Mr. WEST. Well, the gentleman and I will concur, so far as that is concerned. Adjudica- tion of causes ought not to be tolerated in either branch of the General Assembly in any form whatever. But to illustrate, so as to be perfect- ly understood. There was a time when an ad- verse party could not be heard as a witness in a cause to which an administrator was a party. There was a broad provision. An administra- tor, therefore, might prosecute an action, and there was abundance of witnesses in existence by whom the injustice of the action might be established; but by reason of prohibitions of statute they could not be introduced before the court. The competency[of parties was enlarged and permitted to come in and establish a just defense against the claim. Well, now, that is not an adjudication by the General Assembly. It is simply enlarging the rule of evidence. That is all. The General Assembly do not de- cide whether the witnesses’ testimony is right or wrong; but enlarge the rule of competency. Nothing more. Well, justice may be done, and is frequently done, by it. Another branch of the case is this, “that no law shall take effect until ninety days after its passage.” Well, something of that kind would work no harm. The Legislature has already provided that no law shall take effect until the y. n-77 first of May next after its passage, unless other- wise provided in the act itself; and I think it will be better, if this provision be adopted to fix a day certain — say the first day of June or July, so that there will be one uniform day, and the people will not have to get the statute book and see what day an act was approved by the Gov- ernor, and then cypher down when it went into effect. Let a specific day be fixed. I think it would be better to fix a day certain, either the first day of May, or June, or some specific day ; so that all statutes shall take effect upon that day, otherwise it may have the effect to mis- lead the people. Mr. BURNS. I would like to inquire if the time is fixed at ninety days, whether the three days of grace would be allowed? Mr. WEST. The three days of grace proba- bly might be fixed. I think it would be better to fix a day certain, say the first day of June, if the General Assembly is going to be in session, and I think it will if it keeps on with this ap- propriation bill until the Convention adjourns. Mr. PRATT. Keeps on supervising the Con- vention. Mr. WEST. Yes, supervising. But I do not think there is any real necessity of this clause. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like leave to say a word or two. The PRESIDENT. Leave is granted. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am comparatively a young member of the profession ; but I do utterly protest, coming especially from the high source it does, from the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], against the bad legal morals that his remarks have involved; and I submit to every lawyer and to every gentleman of this Convention, to what abuses a practice could be brought, carried out under the principles enun- ciated by him. I can imagine a case. Some citizen of Logan, or Champaign, or Shelby, or Allen, or Marion, or the various other coun- ties where the gentleman practices law, calls upon him to consult about a case, and he exam- ines the statutes carefully (as he always does) ; finds out the status of the case, both as to fact and law, and then he advises his client what his rights and remedies are. I know very well that the gentleman himself would go to the Legislature and seek to forward his own case, or interfere with that of his adverseries ; and the case would go on through, unquestionably, just as the rights of the parties were, as far as he was concerned. But, then, suppose that the other side should employ somebody who was not quite so conscientious as the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], and being informed what my friend from Logan had said, “West is right; but, then, we will go down to the Leg- islature and get a rail under him and we’ll hoist him. We will provide ourselves with a * right.” ’ Why may not they do it ? Your client has gone into the courts. He has re- tained you. He has taken upon himself the trouble * and responsibility of the costs, rely- ing upon your judgment of w T hat the law is, and yet you would put it into the hands of your adversaries, who had less con- science than you, to go into the Legislature and reverse the remedies upon which you had relied. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman permit me ? 1186 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Cunningham, West, Mueller, Page. [Monday, Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. WEST. Let me illustrate for his bene- fit: Suppose that the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] should enter upon the premises of his neighbor and steal his neigh- bor’s pears. I do not think that he would do it; but suppose that nobody in the world knew anything about it but his neighbor’s wife. Now, she informs her husband that the gen- tleman had been there, trespassed, and taken away his property, and no other mortal knew it, except the wife. The husband, sup- posing he can, brings his action to recover for the lost property. He institutes suit. Now, it is his right— there is a clear and unquestionable right to bring his suit against the gentleman from Allen. The case is now commenced. The gentleman from Allen comes to me and lays his case before me, and I say, “ Did you steal the pears ?” “ Yes.” “ Well, you need not pay for them. They cannot prove it. They have but one witness— the plaintiff’s wife is the only witness that knows anything about it, and she is not competent to testify.” “ Very well, then, we’ll fight it.” Not that you, or my client, is in the right or in the wrong; but by reason of a defect in the law, the only human being on earth that knows anything about it, except the defend- ant himself, is incompetent as a witness. Now, the plaintiff goes to the General Assembly, and procures the passage of a law, whereby an hon- est woman is permitted to tell the truth in a court of justice, and the defendant is now com- plaining about it. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] is always successful, and he has succeeded in furnishing the finest argu- ment in favor of this proposition that has been before the Convention this morning. Nobody proposes to interfere with the right of my neighbor to sue me for the pears. That is his right. We are not talking about the introduc- tion of this testimony, and this amendment was drawn for the purpose of meeting the criticisms that were made upon it on Saturday. But how is it? The gentleman would leave it in the power of the other party, by legislation, to de- feat the right of my neighbor to recover against me for taking the pears. A MEMBER. No, no. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is the logic of it. Mr. POWELL. Yes, that’s the logic of it. Mr. MUELLER. Yes, exactly. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Now, we do not w’ant that. It appears to me, Mr. President, serious- ly, that there is a great deal of force and wisdom in the proposition introduced, here, by the ven- erable gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], and I think this Convention ought to adopt it. Mr. PAGE. I doubt very much the policy of adopting the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], I refer particularly to the last clause of it. Now, let us consider what is the present state of the law before we propose to alter, or to amend it. We have already the 28th section of the Legislative Article, which provides “that the General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the ob- ligation of contracts, but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as may be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings arising out of their want of conformity to the laws of the State.” Now, that was probably the law of this coun- try before the adoption of that Constitution, and, so far as the right of the Legislature to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the ob- ligation of contracts, is concerned, that was prohibited long ago; and it has been considered as contrary to the rules of public policy and general jurisprudence, even from the days of the civil law. It is laid down in some of the earli- est writers, even as remote as Bracton, that ret- roactive laws are contrary to public policy, and our various courts have always held so. What is a retroactive law ? I read from Sedgwick : “A statute which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to trans- actions already past, is to be deemed retrospect- ive or retroactive.” I will now read an impor- tant section from Sedgwick, to which I wish to call the attention of the Convention. He says : “There is indeed a large number of cases in which ap- peals are made for legislative assistance, in which it would be very injurious to assert the doctrine that the Legislature is incompetent to pass laws having a retroac- tive effect. Such are laws declaring valid acts of official persons irregularly elected, amending charters of incor- f >orated companies, correcting assessment rolls irregular- y made, extending the time for the collection of taxes in the time required by law, and altering and amending ju- dicial procedure. In these and many other cases it is difficult to avoid giving the acts of the Legislature a re- troactive effect, and every such effect must, or may, influ- ence injuriously some individual case. But the interests of the community are paramount.” The wisdom of curative acts is universally recognized. Now, the laws which are permitted and authorized by the twenty-eighth section of the Legislative Article, and authorized by the laws of this country prior to the adoption of that Constitution, are those which cure those defects — defects in the acknowledgment of deeds and powers of attorney; defects in marriage cere- monies, and laws that alter or take away statutory privileges, and also, a large class of other cases. Everybody admits that the Legis- lature ought to have power to change and alter the laws on those subjects, so far as they apply to existing causes of action. Nobody doubts that; because to declare in this Constitution, or in a statute of the State, that the Legislature should pass no laws regulating the mode of pro- cedure as to existing causes of action, would certainly be a very dangerous policy. It would ' be attended with great inconvenience, and difficulty and confusion. If the Legislature could not change rules of evidence, modes of procedure, and cure defects in instruments and official acts, safar as related to existing causes of action, these courts would be compelled to resort to practice acts and other statutes, half a century after they were repealed. In every case that came on to be tried, it would be neces- j sary to conform the pleadings, rules of evidence, : and mode of conducting the trial, with refer- ence to dead statutes — a task of endless trouble and difficulty, and accompanied by no beneficial result. Nobody doubts the wisdom of allowing the Legislature to alter or abolish such statutes, ! so far as existing causes of action are concerned. 1187 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] Mueller, Page, Hale, Powell. But it is supposed by some that it is a great hardship to change the statutes as to pending cases. I see no hardship, unless it is in regard to the payment of costs. Mr. MUELLER. The gentleman says there would be no hardship. Suppose, that under the laws, I would be incompetent to be a wit- ness myself, and had, in doing a great business, trusted to this man a thousand dollars, and to another a thousand dollars, and so on, relying upon the right, if I would have to bring suit, to introduce the evidence allowed under the law. Suppose I have in this way a hundred thou- sand dollars owing to me; but before I come into the court, the Legislature has repealed the law which allowed me to be a witness in my own case, so that I would have to sacrifice fifty or a hundred thousand dollars. This would apply in many cases; and I would ask if it would not be a hardship to abolish that rule of evidence which would thus deny me mv right? J y Mr. PAGE. Well, the case put by the gentle- man from Cuyahoga [Mr. Mueller], is not reached by the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], unless he has actually instituted his action. Because, under the amendment of the gentleman from Dela- ware, it is competent for the Legislature to change and alter, in their discretion, the rules of evidence as to existing causes of action ; and if the cause of action has accrued in the case put by the gentleman from Cuyahoga, but no suit is pending, the Legislature may still alter the rule of evidence, so as to defeat his cause of action. This subject must be left to the wisdom of the Legislature. We cannot, of course, incorpo- rate the rules of procedure in the Constitution. If a person should bring suit, and under the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], could not avail himself of the statute regulating the rules of evidence or mode of procedure, what has he to do ? Why, he may simply dismiss the action and go out of court, pay his costs and commence the suit again. So, by a little strategy, he may escape from what is regarded here as a very impor- tant amendment. If he can do that, what is gained by this constitutional provision ? I think no lawyer would desire to apply the proposition of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], to all causes of action that had accrued. It is to be confined to those actions that are actually pending in courts ; and I see no objection to such alterations in the statutes as affect pending suits, except the matter of costs. As to costs, it is entirely competent for the Legislature, in cases where a party is de- feated by a change in the statutes, to require his adversary to pay costs. I have known many instances where acts of the Legislature materi- ally affected pending suits, but I have never known a single instance where injustice was done or a good cause defeated. I have known instances where actions were defeated that had no other foundation than some technical de- fect. I knew a number of actions, instituted lor the recovery of lands that had been sold and conveyed by virtue of powers of attorney, that were defectively executed. Now, in 1851, an act was passed— Swan and Critchfield, page 474— that cured these defects and defeated these actions. What injury or outrage was there in defeating these unjust ac- tions? Many instances of a similar kind are within the knowledge of every lawyer. The rule referred to by Sedgwick is applica- ble here, when he says, “ the effect of legisla- tion may influence injuriously, some individual case, but the interests of the community are paramount.” It is not possible for the Legisla- ture, as some persons fear, to apply this kind of legislation to statutes of limitation. They may shorten the period, but they cannot wholly de- prive the party of his right of action or de- fense. They can only shorten the period in a reasonable manner. Therefore, it occurs to me, Mr. President, that there is no necessity for this provision, but, on the contrary, it may do a great deal of harm. I hope the Convention will well consider the provision that is contained in the proposed amendment, and not go off upon it without due consideration. This amendment has not been brought here without considerable considera- tion and a very considerable experience. Now, for many years have I known persons to bring a suit, and the opposite party, the defendant in the case, would employ a lawyer, and that law- yer has been a member of the Legislature, or is a member of the Legislature, or has a friend in the Legislature, who will, without giving notice to the opposite party, procure the passage of an act that will deprive that party of his rights and drive him out of court. This I have’ known. There is a number of just such cases, and those who have been long in the profession know this is the case. Now, on this subject, let me say— and I wish to answer the gentle- man from Lorain [Mr. Hale] upon this matter— this provision is merely to prevent this kind of malpractice— by going into the Legislature and depriving a party of his rights, by procuring the passage of a statute which the party knows nothing about, and who is not in the Legisla- ture to represent his rights there, and the in- justice done him. Mr. HALE. If the gentleman will allow me I would like to ask him a question. Mr. POWELL. Very well. Mr. HALE. In your experience, running over many years, how many cases do you novv recollect, of just and equitable cases, that have been thus defeated ? Mr. POWELL. I cannot now mention the names. At my time of life, it is not so easy for me to recollect names of cases as it was thirty years ago. Mr. HALE. Do you remember any case that was really meritorious, just and equitable, that has been thus defeated ? Mr. POWELL. I cannot recollect the names of cases, but I suppose I could, by taking the time and pains, point them out to you. But, Mr. President, let me say to the gentle- man from Lorain [Mr. Hale], and also to the gentleman from Wood county [Mr. Cook] who spoke of a case, or suggested to me the case where the Legislature helped parties to what was an equitable right, in a case that was pend- ing there for an injunction. In both those cases— the one suggested by the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. Hale], and the one suggested 1188 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109 th Powell, Hale, Tuttle. [Monday, by the gentleman from Wood [Mr. Cook], — the action was not defeated, but the action remain- ed. The new law enabled the court, however, to proceed to settle the rights of the parties up- on equitable principles, without defeating the action. Take the court in Wood county, for instance, where the party brought action to en- join them because they had not gone exactly acc rding to law. The new law was not to dri e the party out of court, and defeat him, but the action was permitted to remain there ; and they were allowed to proceed to re-investi- ga the equities of the parties and. settle ac- cordingly. Mr. HALE. But in the case to which you refer, was not the defendant driven out of court, and the plaintiff had his remedy ? Mr. POWELL. No, sir. Mr. HALE. He brought his suit for an in- junction; he was entitled to his injunction, which would have been made perpetual, if it had not been for the suit. Now, the suit would not allow them to have perpetual injunction. Mr. POWELL. No, sir; but the party had the same right as before the suit was brought; and it was provided that the parties should set- tle their respective rights in equity, and hot take any advantage. Mr. HALE. Could it have been done in a suit in equity ? Mr. POWELL. I presume not, sir. But I say this, that we should prevent the Legisla- ture passing any law of a remedial nature that would hinder them going on with the case, and should keep parties from going to the Legisla- ture surreptitiously, and driving the other par- ty out of court. Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman then ex- plain this language, “ at the time the action on which the rights of the party.” Mr. POWELL. The gentleman from Pick- away [Mr. Page], has just enlightened the gentleman on that point, by the extracts he has read. Those words do not go to the equity of the case, or to the mere remedy, but to the sub- stantial rights that exist and sustain an action ; and he cited from Sedgwick and other authors there, to show the distinction. Mr. HALE. Then, if the gentleman will excuse me, one word further. Do I under- stand the gentleman to say that by this princi- ple, he simply proposes to say, the Legislature shall not affect the vested rights of parties, and does intend to leave to the Legislature the pow- er to legislate as to the remedies that may be applied ? Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir; the party out of court. Mr. HALE. Then the Constitution does that now. Mr. POWELL. No, sir. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me a remark? Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. TUTTLE. I would like, if the gentle- man will permit, to brielly state a case. 1 would ask him what he would do with a case like one in 1866, where A and B — husband and wife — commenced suit against C. C had a deed of conveyance, as he supposed, from A and B; but on examination, found it defective — the land being held in the right of the wife. He filed without driving an account to correct the mistake and it was demurred to. The case was pending in 1867, when the Legislature passed a law in pursuance of the 28th section of this Article of the Constitution, enabling the court to correct such mistakes. A suit was pending, and the statute was applicable to that suit, after the statute was passed, and protected C. But if the suit had not come in and had not been applicable to the case, the plaintiffs would have succeeded ; but as it was, they were defeated. Now, what I wish to know is, whether the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] thinks that ought not to have been, and that the Constitution ought to have protected A and B, having commenced the suit against the consequences of that leg- islation ? Mr. POWELL. I would, Mr. President, be pleased that this gentleman and all would lis- ten to me. That case did not defeat the action. Now, let the gentleman keep that in mind. Mr. TUTTLE. I ask, did not the Legislature defeat it? Mr. POWELL. No, sir; the action was brought to cover the defect in the acknowl- edgment. The action stood. The law that was passed did not defeat the action of itself ; but enabled the party to go into equity, and if equity existed, that he might go into equity and perfect his title ; but the action stood and it was enjoined upon the proceedings. Now, with- out that equity, he could do nothing, and this proposition does not intend to interfere with equity, it only intends that a party shall not go into the Legislature surreptitiously to defeat the action by legislative proceeding; and if there is any proceeding to be had upon equity independent of that, it does not interfere with it. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me one other question? Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir, certainly. Mr. TUTTLE. Under this provision, would not the court probably hold that the statute of 1857 — if this had been in the Constitution at the time — applied to the case ? Mr. POWELL. 1 think not, sir. I did say that remedies are always liable to be looked into, and that, provided the act itself did not defeat the action, a party should be enabled to file a petition in error, and if he can show equity that would enable him to enjoin a party from proceeding further on the ground of that equity. The object is to prevent legislation from send- ing a party out of court by the force of the act; and that is a very different thing from defeat- ing the right by means of equity that is outside of that matter, that equity might control the litigation of the proceedings. It is a very dif- ferent case, and 1 am surprised that lawyers of experience here do not see the difference and understand it. Here the President announced that the gen- tleman’s time had expired. By unanimous con- sent of the Convention, however, the gentleman was permitted to proceed with his remarks. Mr. POWELL. There is no better provision of constitutional law, Mr. President — of the real, substantial rights of the parties protected by law — than this, namely : that a party shall not be defeated by a retroactive law. I know, however, that laws of this kind have been 1189 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9 , 1874 .] Powell, Sample. passed, which did operate retroactively, and by which parties have been thrown out of court. Now, whether the fact was enforced and pushed upon the court that the law, in a particular case, was retroactive, and, therefore, unconsti- tional, I cannot say; but, without doing that, I wish to have this principle adopted, so that it be plain that no man’s action, and no substan- tial right, shall be defeated by legislative pro- ceedings. It is everywhere intended that par- ties’ rights shall be decided by the court, and that the Legislature never shall interfere with the rights of the parties. That is a principle established, not only by our constitutional law throughout the United States, but, as I believe, by the practice of the civilized world. And yet, our Legislature have done it, and gentlemen of experience on this floor, have advocated that they may do, and should be left at liberty to do, that very thing, to the effect that, when a suit is brought, a party may go surreptitiously into the Legislature, and get an act passed which will throw the other party right out of court. Now, if there are equities behind the action, that will defeat the party, and the Legislature enable those equities to be exam- ined, so that it may be seen that it is equity, and not the mere ipse dixit of the Legislature that procures the result, I have no objection. The difference between myself and the gentle- man from Logan [Mr. West], is perfectly plain and obvious, when he says that this question should be left for decision upon general princi- ples, which, as I maintain, do not touch this case. All that I contend for is that the Legis- lature shall not defeat an action by a mere leg- islative proceeding, which may be obtained by one party knowing anything about it. I believe such a law to be unconstitutional, and yet it has not been so decided — and let me say, that a court never will decide an act to be unconstitu- tional, if they can, by any excuse, get over it, that is to say, in the generality of cases. But, if you have this act passed, it becomes plain and palpable, so that everybody will under- stand that it ought not to be done. But, if you maintain the action, if you let the action stand, and there is an equity outside of that, then, un- doubtedly, it may be so operated upon as that the action shall stop there. Then it will be a matter for the court to say, in point of equity, which party in the case shall pay the costs. It was a case of that kind to which the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle], referred the other day, under the name of Purcell, where an action was brought to recover land, and an act was passed to remedy the defect in the acknowl- edgment, upon the ground of the equity. They did not say that that should defeat the action, but that the party might file a bill in chancery to ascertain whether or not the equity existed ; and, if it did exist, then, an injunction might be made, and it would remain for the court to say who should pay the costs; but they did not, by the act itself, put the party out of court. Now, Mr. President, I wish to say a few words upon the other branch of the case. You can- not mention anything with regard to the time when the law shall go into effect. A law estab- lishing that time as the first of May, or the first of July, or on any other day, will not answer the purpose. That will not do, because the Legislature may be, sometimes, in session up to that very day. This section proposes that acts of the Legislature shall not take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the Legis- lature; for, until the Legislature adjourns, and their acts begin to be published, we know nothing of what they have been doing, or what the law is. Very frequently we suppose that we understand the law, and are proceeding under it, when, the first thing we know is, that an act, quite unexpectedly to everybody, comes up and trips up the whole proceeding. But if something like ninety days were given, after the adjournment, when they would begin to publish the laws, that would give everybody an opportunity to know and understand how the law stood. And according to this amendment, it gives sufficient further time, so as to obviate all the difficulties that have arisen. It is a very great objection to the numerous laws that have been passed by the Legislature, that very fre- quently, when proceedings in a case have been entered upon, the first thing that is known is that parties are tripped up by an unexpected statute, brought up upon the very occasion. If, however, ninety days after the adjournment are given, it can be ascertained when the Leg- islature adjourned, and we shall know exactly the day when the law takes effect — namely, ninety days after that time. Now, to put the time at ninety days after the passage of the act, would not do. It should be ninety days after the adjournment of the Legislature, unless the Legislature determine otherwise. Some laws are passed, and it is never mentioned when they go into effect; and they go into effect im- mediately upon their passage, at common law, without this amendment. Under this amend- ment, when the act is passed, the Legislature need not trouble themselves with regard to the time when the law shall take effect; for this law establishes that time at ninety days after the adjournment of the Legislature, unless the Legislature, for some reason or other, should determine that it should be otherwise. I think this is right. It will obviate a great many of the difficulties and troubles which we have had in the courts. Mr. SAMPLE. I hope this provision will not be adopted — nor any part of it. The first clause of it, I think, is a matter of very little importance — of too little importance, I think, to be incorporated into the Constitution. It provides, merely, that if the Legislature fail to say anything as to when a law shall go into effect, it shall not take effect until ninety days after the close of the session of the Legislature at which it is passed. That is a matter of so little importance, that it seems, to my mind, that it ought not to be incorporated as a sub- stantial provision in the Constitution. Mr. POWELL. Will the gentleman permit me to put a question to him? Mr. SAMPLE. Yes, sir: with pleasure. Mr. POWELL. Suppose, for instance, that a penal act is passed, and the Legislature shall say that the act shall take effect on the first day of May next. In three days after the first day of May next, a person does an act which he had no idea was a penal act at the time ; but it becomes penal under such a provision. Now, I ask gentlemen, is that just? Is it right that 1190 [109th THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Powell, Sample. [Monday, a person should so suffer, in that short time, after the act has gone into effect? Mr. SAMPLE. The answer I make to that question is, that the provision offered by the gentleman does not remedy that kind of case ; because it leaves it in the power of the Legis- lature to declare a particular act to be criminal, and to provide in the act itself that it shall take effect from and after its passage. Mr. POWELL. Let me suggest to the gentle- man, then, that unless the Legislature have some good reason for it, they will not make it so. If they shall have so provided, it will be because they see good reason for it. But here we have had acts taking effect, nobody knowing or noticing at what time they would take effect. Mr. SAMPLE. I say that we have been living a long time without such a provision in the Constitution, and in an uninterrupted ex- perience of more than a quarter of a century, I have never known a man to be indicted for the commission of an act made penal by a law, the existence of which he had not the means of knowing, and this provision does not afford any protection at all against such an evil or such an injury, if it were a fact that it did exist. Un- der the Constitution, our Legislature has de- clared that unless there be a particular provision in the bill specifying the time, it shall take effect from the first day of May following its enactment; but in looking over the statutes, I fail to find a single statute in which the Legis- lature has not declared, as a part of the act it- self, when it should take effect. That has become the habit of the Legislature, and it is to be supposed that the Legislature will continue in the habit, and that, as a matter of form — as a formal appendage to every act that is passed in the Legislature — they will declare when it shall go into effect; so that I have no objection to the provision here, except this : that it has no significance, and is not a provision which, in my judgment, is of sufficient importance to be made a part of the Constitution. I think there are thousands of other matters, of more importance than this, to which the attention of this Convention may be reasonably directed, which will swell the Constitution to the capacity to which it is proper it should be extended. But the other provision, Mr. President, is not, I think, of this indifferent character. I think it is one which ought not, upon principle, to be adopted by this Convention. It provides that no law shall apply to proceedings in a suit pend- ing at the time of the passage thereof, so as to defeat the action or change the rights of the parties existing at the time of the commence- ment thereof. What does that assume ? It as- sumes, if there is any virtue in it at all, that the Legislature have the right to change the rights of the parties by legislation. That is an assumption which ought never, by any im- plication, to find a place in a Constitution, or in any provision of this Constitution. Parties have their rights, they go into court for the purpose of enforcing these rights, and upon those rights the Legislature have no power to ad- judicate. The Legislature cannot by any act, or in any way, interfere with the existence of those rights. But it does not prevent the Legislature from affecting pending actions. If the Legis- lature can pass a law, under this provision, which does not change the rights of parties, it may be done, and it may have an application to existing actions as well as to causes of action on which actions have not been brought. Is there any principle why, because a man has institu- ted an action he may not be subjected to the same rules in the determination of his rights in the progress of that action to which an indi- vidual who had exactly a similar right of action existing, but had not commenced action, would be subjected in the prosecution of his right? I can imagine none. I can see no reason why, merely because a man has commenced an ac- tion, he should have a privilege which another man, having equal rights and being entitled to equal benefits under the law, should not pos- sess. Assuming, then — and it is too plain for ar- gument before this Convention, and before intelligent men — that the Legislature have no power to act upon existing rights, and that those rights are fixed and permanent, and can- not, in any way, be affected by legislative action — the action of the Legislature can only affect remedies, which, I suppose, by universal assent, are admitted to be wholly under the control of the Legislature — the statute of limitations, the rules of evidence, the mode of procedure, and everything relating to the instrumentalities or means by which a party obtains the aid of the law in the vindication of his rights. The principal difficulty, I suppose, has grown out of the change of the law of evidence. The Legislature, by the enactment of the code of 1853, abrogated the arbitrary principles of the common law, which had previously been in force in the State of Ohio, and by which truth was excluded, in consequence of its hav- ing to be drawn from an interested source ; and they provided that even parties to a case might be witnesses. They undertook to abrogate those provisions, but only in part accomplish- ing it; and the changes which have been made, from time to time, in the application of the principle which was adopted by that Legisla- ture, have only gone further and further in every successive enactment in tearing away the barriers which were interposed in the progress of a case, and by which the introduction of evidence tending to establish the truth of the facts in the case was prevented by arbitrary rule. Well, now, it is proposed, by this pro- vision, not that enactments of the Legislature changing the rules of evidence or the mode of procedure shall not apply to existing causes of action, but that they shall not apply to existing action. I have said there is no reason in that; but I say there is great injustice in it, as has been shown here by way of illustration. A party has brought his action ; he finds that he has not the means of furnishing the requisite evidence to enable him to maintain his case. The Legislature passes a law which, if it had been passed before he brought his action, would have enabled him to produce the requi- site evidence, and to accomplish his purpose; but, having brought his action, he is not enti- tled to the privilege or to the benefit of that law, and it cannot apply to his case. What does he do then? He just abandons his case. He submits to a nonsuit or to a dismissal with- Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1191 February 9, 1874.] Powell, Sample, Hoadly, Hunt. out prejudice, under the present practice, and immediately afterward brings action, and works his case through. Mr. POWELL. The gentleman ought to no- tice that the word “defeat” is there. Anything that will help the action will not prevent it at all. The party need not go out of court for the purpose of bringing in anything the Legisla- ture may give him to help the action through. It merely prohibits a party from defeating the action of the opposite party. Mr. SAMPLE. Then this is a kind of auxil- iary provision in favor of plaintiffs ; but it is death on defendants. That is the point. Ac- cording to the explanation of the gentleman, if such law is an auxiliary that will come in and enable the plaintiff to make his case, all right; but if it has a tendency to aid the de- fendant, who is brought into court without his consent, and prevents him from introducing evidence in his case in his own defense, then that will be a violation of the Constitution. I have no respect for, and no confidence in, that kind of a Constitutional provision — if such be its character. I am in favor of even-handed justice. If a principle applies in favor of one party to a suit, I ask that it may be made to apply in favor of the other party, that they may stand on terms of equality, and that equal j ustice may be administered. We have illustrations of this kind of legislation in Ohio. The Code, when it changed the rules of evidence, provided that that change should not affect actions then pending. What was the effect of it? A man who had a cause pending, and found it necessary to examine his client for the purpose of establishing his case, would sub- mit to a non-suit, dismiss his action, and avail himself of this provision ; but, if the defense rested upon the testimony of the defendant, the plaintiff would hold on, and not give him an opportunity to testify. Now, I say, any law that will operate that way is unjust. And I know it did operate that way, because it did so in my own experience. It did enable a plaintiff to dismiss his action, and bring an action under the law, and sustain it, by availing himself of the provisions of the Code. Whilst, instead of being in favor of the defendant, if the defense had been within his own knowledge, and could have been established most conclusively by his own testimony, he had no remedy, nor any re- lief, and must have submitted to a verdict against him. Such, then, being the nature of this provision, a provision which, in my judg- ment, can do no good, and if it has any operation whatever, it must be an operation which may work injustice ; may work justice in a particular case, but can be of no general benefit. I hope it will not be adopted. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate from Co- shocton [Mr. Sample] allow me a question be- fore he takes his seat ? It is : whether the 30th section does not furnish all the remedy that is needed for all the evils that really exist? Mr. SAMPLE. I think there is no doubt of it. Mr. POWELL. This has been amended to correspond with the opinions and best judg- ment of some individuals, and some words have got in that I, in the first instance, did not labor for. I thought possibly there might be a diffi- culty in the way, and, therefore, I move to strike out these words : “or change the rights of par- ties.” I move to strike those words out in order to see if that will be acceptable to a larger num- ber of the members of the Convention than it would to keep them in. Mr. HUNT. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Convention The PRESIDENT. The question is now simply on striking out the words, “or changing the rights of parties.” Mr. HUNT. I shall not confine my remarks to that question alone, but shall speak against the entire amendment as amended. The Com- mittee on the Legislative Department discussed this proposition in their meetings. The same amendment was offered in Committee by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. It was almost the unanimous opinion that there should be some provision in our Constitution in regard to remedial legislation. It will be conceded that our statutes are sometimes de- fective, and it will further be conceded that such a contingency may arise that the only remedy for a great wrong can be found through the General Assembly. The necessity will sometimes exist. When the evil becomes appar- ent there should be some power to rectify it. The whole argument of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], is based upon the idea, that it is not safe to trust the Legislature in this matter, and that evil and not good would more frequently result from the rule. This is a mistake. The presumption is always in favor of the equitable action of the General Assembly. The Representatives of the people are more likely to do right than to do wrong, in the enactment of a statute. They are the guardians of the public interests. It is contend- ed, by gentlemen, that the effect of such a pro- vision would operate against the right of inno- cent parties. This does not follow. There may, indeed, be individual cases, where the jury may be worked, but such cases would be the exception. They would rarely occur in our legislation. In the absence of such au- thority to legislate, the injured party would be without any remedy, whatever, either through the courts of law, or through the General Assembly of the State. Cases may arise in which there should be an appeal to a higher power. The Legislature should be that tribunal. It would be a great error to prohibit this discretion by constitutional enactment. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], has called attention to section 30 of the Report. This places a limitation upon the power of the General Assembly. The Constitution prohib- its the Legislature from passing retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of con- tracts. There is, therefore, no danger to be apprehended from any retroactive legislation. The power is limited by express provision. It was intended bj T the framers of the present Constitution, that some such discretion should rest in the General Assembly, for it is provided that the Legislature may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into eftect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties and officers, by curing omissions, defects and errors in instru- 1192 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Hunt, Townsend, Powell, Cunningham, Burns, Beer. [Monday, ments and proceedings, arising out of a want of conformity with the laws of the State. If the rights of a party are affected by the repeal of a statute which is wrong of itself, the rights of the party should be subservient to the public good. The citizen must give way for the State. The one for the many. The right to legislate should be left to the General Assembly. Statutes are enacted for the advan- tage of the whole people. The individual ben- efit must give way for the public welfare. The highest consideration in the framing of laws should be the good of the entire people, with- out reference to how the individual citizen may be affected. There need be no fear, as inti- mated by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell], that the General Assembly will be influenced by the private interest of some party whose action is pending in court. The party invoking legislative interference must show a good cause. The fact alone that he seeks such aid will be a presumption against him, and he will be compelled to convince the General As- sembly of the necessity of remedial legislation. It will not be sufficient that a pending litigation will be benefited so much as that a principle should be established. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] has been unable, in his long experience, to cite an instance where the Legislature has not acted equitably in the matter. There may be dele- gates on this floor who have been interested in cases where further legislation has been de- manded from the very necessity of the case. This may have been done to remedy a wrong without reference to the condition of the par- ties to the suit. It is better that a precedent should early be established rather than an evil rule should be followed. The Representatives of the people are presumed to act for the whole people. There should be some discretionary power vested in the law-making department. There should be no prohibition. The fact that a cause is pending should be no reason why a wrong should be without a remedy. Courts and Legislatures should not be prevented from doing right in any case. Remedial legislation may be as necessary as the courts themselves to protect property and to defend the injured and the oppressed. Mr. TOWNSEND. In order that we may progress somewhat with the legislation of this body, I move the previous question. The motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell] to strike out from his amendment the words, “or change the rights of parties ” ; so that the amendment, if amended, will read thus : “No law, except such as appropriates money, shall go into effect until ninety days after the passage thereof, un- less an earlier date shall be named in the bill; and no law shall apply to proceedings pending at the time of the passage thereof, so as to defeat the action existing at the time of the commencement thereof.” The motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. Mr. POWELL. I ask that a division of the House be taken. The PRESIDENT. There has been no vote taken yet. Mr. POWELL. I mean a vote by rising. On a vote being taken by standing, four mem- bers voted affirmatively, whereupon the Presi- dent declared the amendment not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer] to amend section sixteen by insert- ing after the word, “ title,” in line six, these words : “And if any subject shall be embraced in the Act whic* 1 shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.” Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I rise to a point of order ; whether we can amend, after having refused to strike out the original section. The PRESIDENT. That is not the question. The question is upon striking out the words offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I understand, the Convention, the other day, refused to strike out the original section. The PRESIDENT. No, sir; I think there has been no such vote. The only question, thus far, has been the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Powell]. The question is on the amendment of the gen- tleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The reading of the amendment was called for. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will read the amendment again. The gentleman from Craw- ford [Mr. Beer] moves to amend section 16, by inserting, after the word “title,” in line 6, these words : “And if any subject shall be embraced in any Act which shall not be expressed in the title, said Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.” So that the section, if amended, will read thus: “No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much there- of as shall not be so expressed; and no law shall be re- vived or amende 1, unless the new Act contain the entire Act revived, or the section or sections amended; and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.” Mr. BURNS. I would like to hear some sug- gestion from the gentleman who offers this amendment. I believe this is an exact copy of the section of the present Constitution. Has it been established, I w;ould inquire, by any deci- sion of the supreme court, that this provision is mandatory, or is it simply directory ? Is it the settled rule that a law that contains a subject not expressed in its title, is void ? I think the very reverse is true. This would, by infer- ence, at least, say that the subject matter of a law, not expressed in the title, was void. I have no objections to the amendment, provided it is made apparent to me that it is necessary or useful. But I do not really see the necessity or propriety of it. I simply make this suggestion by way of inquiry. Mr. BEER. The supreme court of our State has decided that these words, in our present Constitution, are simply directory, and that a departure from them will not render any part of the act void. In other words: An act may have forty different subjects, and only one of them need be expressed in tiie title, and yet the THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Beer, Hoadly, Hunt, Baber. 1193 Day.] February 9, 1874.] act is constitutional. The decision I refer to will be found in the case of Miller vs. the State, 3 Ohio State, and Pim vs. Nicholson, 6 Ohio State ; and there are more recent decisions to the same effect. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate from Crawford [Mr. Beer] permit me to ask a ques- tion? Mr. BEER. Yes, sir. Mr. HOADLY. Will not the adoption of his amendment give rise to a large crop of litiga- tion founded on legislative doubts as to whether the title of the act really described the contents fairly? And will it not lead, in all such cases, where there is attempted litigation, to the deci- sion that a mere legislative blunder in describ- ing the contents of an act, has the effect to annul a part of the act? Mr. BEER. In reply, I will say, I think not. It evidently was the intention of the framers of the old Constitution to provide that there should be but one subject in an act. And I suppose that but very few acts have since been passed in violation of this provision of the Constitution. But there have been some violations of it. A provision similar to the one I now make in this amendment will be found in the Constitutions of a great many States — Indiana, Illinois, Ore- gon, Iowa, Tennessee, New Jersey, all have similar provisions. That is, they go further than the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and provide that that part of a statute which is not described in the title, is void, but that the bal- ance of the act, that part of it which is ex- pressed in the title, shall be in force. The lan- guage I have used is exactly the language of the Illinois Constitution. In Indiana, the section is in these words : “ Every act shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected there- with, which subject shall be expressed in the title; and if any subject shall be expressed in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.” The same provision is copied into the Constitution of Oregon, and into the Constitution of Iowa. When this matter was pending before the Com- mittee of the Whole, I made such explanations as I thought it demanded, and I have no desire to take any further time. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer]. The yeas and nays were demanded. Mr. HOADLY. I object. The demand for the yeas and nays was not sustained. The question being on the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford [Mr. Beer], the amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. Are there any other amendments to section 16 ? If not, the Secre- tary will read section 17. The Secretary read : “The presiding officer of each House shall sign, public- ly, in the presence of the House over which he presides, while the same is in session and capable of transacting business, all bills and joint resolutions passed by the General Assembly ” The PRESIDENT. Are there any amend- ments to section 17 ? If there are no amend- ments to section 17, section 18 having been dis- posed of, the Secretary will read section 19. The Secretary read : “Sec. 19. The style of the laws of this State shall be, ‘Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.’ ” The PRESIDENT. If there are no amend- ments to section nineteen, the Secretary will read section twenty. The Secretary read : “Sec. 20. No Senator or Representative shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, or for one year thereafter, be appointed to any civil office under this State, which shall be created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during the term for which he shall have been elected,” The PRESIDENT. Are there any amend- ments to section twenty ? Mr. MINER. I move to amend section twen- ty by inserting in the second line after the word “be,” the words “elected or,” so that it will read, “be elected or appointed.” Now, there may be some reason for leaving out the word “elected,” and I make the motion to call forth the reasons. If it ought not to be there I shall acquiesce, but I do not understand why it should not as well apply to persons elected to an office, as to persons appointed to an office. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Miner], moves to amend section twenty, by inserting in the second line after the word “be,” the words “elected or.” Mr. HUNT. The amendment proposed by my colleague [Mr. Miner], was under discus- sion in the Committee on the Legislative De- partment. The motive that influenced the Committee in submitting the Report in the form suggested, was, that in an elective office the matter was referable to the people, and they could determine whether or not, under all the circumstances, the candidate was fit to repre- sent them. The word “ elected” was opposed, and it was deemed best to apply the principle to appointed offices under the General Assem- bly. Offices created under the General As- sembly, which are filled by appointment, might be secured by a combination of the members of the General Assembly, and then, through ex- ecutive influence, a member of the General Assembly could be appointed to the office he had assisted to create. The same objection that would apply to an “ appointive office”, we held in the Committee, would not apply to an elective office, because there would be the intervention of the people. Therefore, we preferred leaving the question to the people, instead of restricting it. The privilege of selecting their own Repre- sentatives pertains to the people, and should never be denied to them by Constitutional enactment. The granting to the General As- sembly the right of creating an office, to be filled by a member of that body, might lead to combination, aided by the executive, destructive of the public interest. Mr. BABER. It does not seem to me that the argument of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], is consistent with his great con- fidence in the Representatives of the people. On another question, he thinks that the veto power could save this State from all corruption. I do not see the consistency between the two 1194 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, [109th Baber, Burns, Hunt, West, Scofield, etc. [Monday, arguments. Now, he wishes to trust the people with everything, and before, he thought their Representatives could not be trusted. Mr. BURNS. I would like to inquire whether the gentleman’s position on the veto question, was consistent with minority representation ? Mr. BABER. I will argue that question when I come to it. I will come directly to the question of the gentleman. Mr. HUNT. I desire to ask the gentleman, if there is no necessity for the veto power, why do gentlemen support the revisionary power upon the part of the Governor. Mr. BABER. We do not propose to re-argue that question, but this kind of a veto cannot defeat the will of a majority. Mr. WEST. I suggest the statute of limita- tions after one Sunday has intervened for a reply. [Laughter]. Mr. BABER. I will come to the argument of the gentleman. He has a right to be as con- sistent or as inconsistent as he pleases. I do not interfere. His argument is that this is right for the people. Now, in our County and Township Organization Article, we do not name the county or township officers, but leave that en- tirely to the Legislature. As county and town- ship officers may be created by the General Assembly, why might there not be a combina- tion or interested lobby for the purpose of creating valuable county and township offices, and might not men get themselves sent to the Legislature for the express purpose of making elective positions for themselves ? It seems to me there is no reason for making this dis- tinction. I think there should be as much a limitation in that case as in the case of an ap- pointive officer. I see no reason for making the difference. The question being on the motion of the gen- tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Miner], the motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. If there are no other amendments to section 20, the Secretary will read section 21. The Secretary read : “Sec. 21. The General Assembly, in cases not provided for in this Constitution, shall fix the term of office and compensation of all officers; but no change therein shall •affect the salary of any officer during his existing term, unless the office be abolished.” The PRESIDENT. Are there any amend- ments to section 21 ? Mr. SCOFIELD. I offerthe following amend- ment to section 21. The Secretary read : Mr. Scofield moves to amend by striking out all after the word “officers”, in line two, and inserting the follow- ing: “But shall in no case extend the term of office or in- crease or diminish the salary, fees or compensation of any person elected or appointed to any office or position under the Constitution or laws of this fetate, after such person shall have been elected or appointed.” So that the section would read: “Sec. 21. The General Assembly, in cases not provided for in this Constitution, shall fix the term of office and compensation of all officers, but shall in no case extend the term of office or increase or diminish the salary, fees or compensation of any person elected or appointed to any office or position under the Constitution or laws of this State, after, or during, the period for which such per- son shall have been elected or appointed.” Mr. BURNS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman what he means by “ after?” After the term of office expires ? Mr. SCOFIELD. No, sir; it does not read that way. The PRESIDENT directed the Secretary to read the amendment again. Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not desire to occupy the time of the Convention. The amendment will speak for itself. The object is to cut off all such legislation as has been passed by Con- gress, so far as the salary grab is concerned, and which has been passed by the General Assembly of Ohio, at the closing hours of the session, and in voting away several thousand dollars of the people’s money to employes. Clerks, and Sergeants-at-Arms. The object of this amendment is to cut that off also. I have spoken to several members about the amend- ment and it seems to meet with their approba- tion. I trust the Convention will give it care- ful consideration. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not think I under- stood from the Secretary’s reading, how the section now stands — whether the amendment made by the Committee of the Whole was agreed to by the Convention. The PRESIDENT. It was not agreed to. Mr. HITCHCOCK. It stands as originally reported by the Committee. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary so read it. Mr. SCRIBNER. If I understand the pro- posed amendment, it strikes out the concluding clause in the section as it now stands. The PRESIDENT. All after the word “ of- ficers ” in line two. Mr. SCRIBNER. The concluding line pro- vides, substantially, that the fees and emolu- ments may be cut off, in case the office is abol- ished. I doubt very much the expediency of striking out these words. Mr. BABER. There are many gentlemen favorable to the idea of the amendment offered by the gentleman ; but I am in favor of the provision as it now stands. I do not want to strike that out about abolishing the office. I would suggest that the gentleman can make that by way of addition to the section, instead of striking out what is good in the section. Mr. SCOFIELD. If the gentleman will ex- amine the amendment, it does not prevent a bill cutting oft' the salary or emoluments, as he suggests. It simply prevents the increase — pro- vides that they shall not increase the salaries, fees, or compensation of any person elected or appointed to any office in this State, after or du- ring the period for which they shall have been elected or appointed. It is on the principle that among citizens every man has to live up to his contract, and the Legislature cannot inter- fere, and does not, to perfect a bad bargain or furnish a remedy. And it is upon the princi- ple that the citizen making a contract with the State should keep his faith and abide by his contract. Mr. HUNT. I would ask the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Scofield], to what officers his amendment extends? Mr. SCOFIELD. It will extend to all offi- cers from the highest to the lowest, to all men who shall have been elected or appointed to any office or position. Mr. HUNT. I would inquire again, if a per- son having been elected Enrolling Clerk of the 1195 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] Hunt, Scofield, Pond, Neal, Hitchcock. Senate or House of Representatives, and in the discharge of the ordinary duties of his office it should become necessary, during the sittings of the General Assembly, to impose upon him ad- ditional duties, whether or not he should have additional compensation ? Mr. SCOFIELD. He should not have addi- tional compensation, I answer the gentleman. He accepted the office with the under- standing as to what his^er diem should be, and he should keep his faith with the State in that contract. If the General Assembly needs more clerical force, let them furnish an additional En- rolling Clerk to assist him. Mr. HUNT. Very well, should not the State keep faith with him in limiting him to certain duties only? Mr. SCOFIELD. They can fix that by law. Mr. HUNT. No, sir; they cannot. Mr. SCOFIELD. It has been the practice of the General Assembly for years, at the closing hours of the session, to vote away thousands of dollars of the people’s money ; and it is an in- strument in the hands of politicians in voting these compliments to the employes of the Gen- eral Assembly, to secure their influence to elect the politicians to office. It is a practice that the people of the State of Ohio have complained of, and complain of now, voting away their money unceremoniously and without consideration, for services that were never performed. Mr. POND. I would like to call the attention of the Convention to section twenty-four, and see whether it does not cover all that the mem- ber desires to reach by his amendment. “No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, ublic agent or contractor after the services shall have een rendered or the contract entered into.” Is not that safe-guard enough ? Mr. NEAL. I move an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Scofield]. Insert after the word “office,” the words, “extend the terms of office;” so that it shall read: “shall in no case extend the terms of office or increase the salary.” Mr. SCOFIELD. With leave of the Conven- tion, I will accept the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman accepts the amendment. Mr. NEAL. I think this amendment is one fit to be made. The Committee of the Whole, by a very decided vote, struck out the words which the amendment of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Scofield] proposes to strike out, and inserted what appears in italics, and which, at the suggestion of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], was not agreed to by the Con- vention ; because the inference might be drawn that we proposed to authorize the abolishment of constitutional offices. Now, Mr. President, the experience of the last twenty years has demonstrated one thing : that there is a very great disposition on the part of persons elected to office to complain of the emoluments or sala- ries connected with their respective offices. They take the office knowing what the fees or salaries are, and then complain because their compensation is not sufficient. And we find them going to the Legislature, in troops, to have changes made in this respect. And the conse- quence is, that the fees paid to the clerks of courts and sheriffs of our counties are so bur- densome in their character as almost to prevent persons having claims of small amounts from litigating these claims in the courts of justice. The fees, now, of the sheriff in the neighboring county of Scioto, of 31,000 inhabitants, is double the salary of any common pleas judge in the State of Ohio, outside of Cuyahoga and Hamil- ton counties. That is something which ought not to be permitted. These fees and salaries are raised by the log-rolling of officers — per- sons who have been elected to office — before they take their offices, or during the continu- ance of the same. Again, it is notorious that the auditors of the State of Ohio held conven- tion after convention in Columbus, for years, for the purpose of having the term of their office extended, and that they finally, by per- sistent lobbying and log-rolling, accomplished their object. That ought not to be done. We know, again, Mr. President, that, time and time again, gentlemen have been elected to the bench of the supreme court, and their salaries have been changed. One instance occurred when I was a member of the Legislature. The salary of the supreme judge was reduced from $3,000 to $2,500, four judges receiving $3,000, and the salary of one judge (Judge Ranney) was re- duced to $2,500. The consequence was, he h§ld the office only a short time. We know that there are often persistent ef- forts made, after the election of some man to hold office, to have his salary increased ; so that he would receive a larger compensation than his brethren upon the bench. I say, let every man who takes any office whatever, from the highest to the lowest, be satisfied with the fees, emoluments and salary which is given to him by the laws under which he was elected. We should prevent, as far as possible, any in- ducement on the part of any officer, or any class of officers, to lobby and “log-roll” with the members of the Legislature to induce any change in their compensation. As it is now, there are eighty-eight auditors in the State of Ohio. There are eighty-eight sheriffs and eighty-eight clerks. They are, perhaps, men of influence in their respective counties. The personages in the Legislature representing their counties want their support for the future elections. Consequently they are very willing to make such changes in the laws as may be desired by those officers ; and, as our statute books abundantly testify, laws have been changed, time and time again, without asking whether the people demand it, without inquir- ing whether there was any necessity for it, and simply to oblige these patriotic gentlemen who have assumed the duties of the office, and who become dissatisfied because they are not reap- ing as rich a harvest as they desire. I trust, therefore, that this amendment, either in the shape in which it is now offered, or in some other shape, willl become a part of this Con- stitution, so that we can prevent this abuse in the future. Mr. HITCHCOCK. 1 would like to ask whether those changes, to which the gentleman refers, have been made in respect to elected officers while in office ? Mr. NEAL. No, sir; so far as fees are con_ cerned, the supreme court have decided that the section in the present Constitution does not 1196 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, Neal, Sample, Hunt, Scribner, Scofield. [109th [Monday, apply to the changing of fees. But what this amendment prevents is the changing of the salary after a man is elected, and before he goes into office. Heretofore the effort has been made to change the salaries after the election, and before the man is sworn into office. If this amendment is adopted, it will prevent any change after the election. That is what we want to stop. Mr. SAMPLE. I ask for the reading of the amendment, in its present shape. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read. The Secretary read : Strike out all of the said section after the word “offi- cers”, in line two, and insert the following: “But shall in no case extend the term of office, increase or diminish the salary, fees, or compensation of any per- son elected or appointed to any office or position under the Constitution or laws of this State, after such person shall have been elected or appointed.” Mr. HUNT. I simply want to inquire if the word “ employes ” is inserted there? The SECRETARY. No, sir. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon agreeing to the amendment as amended. Mr. SCRIBNER. I agree in what is sought to be accomplished by the amendment pro- posed; but it seems to me that it leaves some imperfection in the section unless an additional amendment is made. It provides that no term of office shall be extended. That is all right. It provides that there shall be no increase in the salary or compensation of any officer, and that, I suppose, is as it should be. But it does not provide that there shall be no diminution in the compensation of any officer, during the term of his office. Nor, as to any office created by the Legislature, does it provide, inferentially or otherwise, that the office may be abolished, and that thus the compensation may be deter- mined. I will move, then, to amend the amend- ment — perhaps that will accomplish the object that I have — by inserting, after the word “ in- crease,” the words “ or diminish.” Mr. SCOFIELD. I have no objection to that amendment. The PRESIDENT. With the leave of the Convention, the gentleman accepts the amend- ment. The Secretary will read the amend- ment as amended. The Secretary read : “But shall in no case extend the term of office, increase or diminish the salary, fees, or compensation of any per- son elected or appointed to any office or position under the Constitution or laws of this State, after such person shall have been elected or appointed.’ ’ Mr. HUNT. If I understand rightly, the Convention, on two occasions, in the Committee of the Whole, voted down the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Sco- field], by a very decided majority, and sus- tained the action of the Committee on the Legislative Department. There has been no argument adduced by the gentleman from Ma- rion [Mr. Scofield] Mr. SCOFIELD. Will the gentleman allow a question? Mr. HUNT. Certainly. Mr. SCOFIELD. They have never voted it down as proposed in this section. I offered the amendment, by mistake, to another section, and it was voted down by only two of a majority. It has never been voted down as an amendment to this section. Mr. HUNT. Well, the principle has been de- termined adversely by this Convention. Mr. SCOFIELD. It was voted down because offered in the wrong place. Mr. HUNT. I am not speaking as to the question of its order, and where it should have been presented, but as to the principle involved in the amendment. I am in favor of applying to officers of the General Assembly the same principles of justice and equity that are ap- plied in the ordinary transactions of life. If the General Assembly shall impose additional duties upon an officer, it should provide addi- tional compensation for those additional duties. If a Sergeant-at-Arms, or a Clerk of the House of Representatives, should perform additional du- ties, he should receive additional compensation for those services; just as an individual in the ordinary transaction of business. If, by rea- son of some adverse circumstances, a contractor should be subject to additional expense or delay, which he could not reasonably have anticipated in the beginning, he is entitled, in all justice, to additional compensation. It should be the same with an officer of the General Assembly. The Legislature cannot always anticipate these things, and this Constitutional Conven- tion cannot determine as to the amount of ser- vice which their officers may render in individ- ual cases. Mr. SCOFIELD. Will the gentleman allow another question ? Mr. HUNT. Certainly. Mr. SCOFIELD. Would the courts of the State of Ohio afford a remedy in the case of in- dividuals such as the gentleman proposes the Legislature shall work out between it and its employes? Mr. HUNT. I can readily imagine a case where the court, in its equity jurisdiction, would interfere, upon proper application, and upon a proper showing. But whether it would interfere or not, the party himself should inter- fere to do right. The contracting party, the General Assembly, which employs the officers to do this work, and imposes additional labor upon them, should pay them for that service. There should be no Constitutional prohibition to prevent the Legislature from doing justice. Take, for instance, the case of Mr. Morgan, an officer of this body. A resolution has been introduced relating to the compensation of James Morgan, for extra services in this Con- stitutional Convention. The Convention elected him an officer of this body. They elected him with the understanding that he should receive live dollars per diem. Can this body say that, in justice, Mr. Morgan is not entitled to additional compensation for extra time that he spent here in furnishing this Hall for the convenience of the members ? Mr. SCOFIELD. Was not Mr. Morgan allowed for his services performed here during the vacation ? It was not for any extra ser- vices. It was for services performed during the vacation, when members were not receiving per diem, and the officers were not receiving per diem. He was engaged in furnishing the Hall, and was allowed lor that service. Mr. HUNT. There is no law which would Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. H97 February 9 , 1874 .] Hunt, Scofield, Humphreyille, Baber. give him additional compensation, which is not given to any member, without the action of this Convention, and he cannot claim beyond that. It is within the discretion of this body to say whether he shall have that additional compen- sation. He is justly entitled to receive it. We engaged him to work during the sittings of this Convention, during the hours that this Con- vention is in session, not far into midnight, and not during the adjournment. He should re- ceive additional compensation for work of that character. It seems to me, as I suggested irv my remarks before, that it is not a matter for this Convention to determine. We have assem- bled here for the purpose of framing an or- ganic law, which shall be the law of The State for, perhaps, a half century. Th.^e small de- tails of legislative matter should be referred to the Genera] Assembly, where" the members of the Legislature, sent by the people, are better able to determine the expediency of each case. Why should not the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, wh\£h employed these officers, pass upon this matter, without reference to constitutional Enactment? But if a clerk re- ceives additional compensation, the gentleman says it will be given for the purpose of re- electing naembers. I question whether he can cite an instance, in the State of Ohio, where a candidate has ever been defeated or elected Senator or Representative by reason of refusing or giving additional pay to an employe of the legislature ; or whether he can point to a single instance where the influence of any such em- pl'bye, in any Senatorial or Representative dis- trict, because of any refusal to vote extra pay extra services, has had very much influence ijn defeating or electing a member. It is very ^oubtful if a case has ever occurred, in the his- tory of the State. I say, then, that the mem- lbers of the General Assembly should be allowed r to act in the matter just as the delegates of this J* Constitutional Convention are permitted to act j in the matter, with regard to their officers. Let them give compensation where it is deserved, and let them withhold it where it is not de- served. The merits of each individual case should govern that case. Let us here, representing the sovereignty of the people of the State of Ohio, not turn our guns, as I said at the beginning, upon the little pages who run over the floor of the Senate, and on the clerk or the employes of the General As- sembly. We have higher duties before us. Mr. SCOFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me another question ? Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. Mr. SCOFIELD. Has he ever known any instance where the pages have received addi- tional compensation? Is it not always men employes who receive it? Nobody proposes to cut off the compensation of the little pages. Mr. HUNT. The pages almost always have an additional pay voted them at the rate of fifty cents a day, and it is given to other officers from time to time, in such cases i if they deserve it. That discretion should be vested in the General Assembly. With all due respect to the Constitutional Convention, wisdom will not die with this body. Long after we have gone from here, and the youngest have gone to their graves, the Legislature of the State of Ohio will meet in its annual or biennial sessions. The Representatives will be there directly from the people, who have confidence in them. They then can pass upon the necessities of each case. There should be no constitutional provision in a matter of so much detail as this ; and we ought to ]be content to indicate certain general princi- ples of legislation, and not go beyond that limit, lest we bring upon ourselves the just criticism of the people. There may have been abuses in this matter of voting extra compensation to the officers of the General Assembly. The remedy is with the people and their Representatives. The responsibility is with them. We have a higher duty to perform ; and this question can safely be left where it properly belongs. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. I am very loth to consume the time of this Convention upon this amendment; but, for the life of me, I cannot see any necessity for it. There is a clause here that looks as though the General Assembly might abolish certain offices. I suppose it is right that they should have that power. It does not imply that they have the right to abolish constitutional offices. We all know that many officers in the State of Ohio hold their offices by authority of legislative enactment — that they are not constitutional offices. As, for instance, the Comptroller of the Treasury. That is not a constitutional office ; neither have we made it such in passing through the Executive Article in this Convention. It is left still a legislative office. There have been repeated attempts to abolish the office of comptroller. Now, sup- pose the Legislature should see fit to abolish that office. Will the gentleman desire that the salary of the office, or compensation, should continue after the office is abolished? So with other offices. The Constitution does not under- take to prescribe all the officers that shall be elected in the State. It does not name all the county and township officers, and many other officers in the State, that are merely creations of the statute law, and not of the Constitution. The Constitution does not undertake to pre- scribe and name all the officers who may hold office in the State of Ohio; and if an office is created by the General Assembly, and it is afterwards found to be unnecesssary, if the General Assembly see fit to abolish it, will it be contended that the salary ought to be continued after this office is abolished? This gives no power, no intimation that the General Assembly may abolish a constitutional office. Mr. BABER. Will the gentleman give way ? Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BABER. I ask him his opinion as a law- yer: Has not the Legislature the power to abolish any legislative office, under the general legislative power, without any special delega- tion in this Constitution? Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. We do not give them any special legislation. Mr. BABER. Delegation, I said. Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. We only recognize the power that they have to abolish legislative offices. Mr. BABER. Have not they that power in the general clause? Mr. HUMPHREYILLE. Yery likely they might have. I do not know but they might. Whether they have or not, I will say that this 1198 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Humphreville, Neal, Clark of R., Scofield, Scribner. [Monday, section, as originally reported, is exactly a transcript of the section in our present Consti- tution. The principle change that this section makes is, instead of providing that no change of office shall affect the sillary, it goes a little further, and says that no change shall affect the salary or compensation of any office , N°w, if that is desired, it can easily be amended without striking out the whole of this latter pro\ isi ^n’ and putting in this provision of doubtful uW" ity. The Committee had the matter under con- sideration, as the Convention has just been told by a member of the Committee, whether we would put in a provision prohibiting the Legis- lature from passing any laws that could affect the fees of officers ; and we thought it advisable to leave that out. But if the Convention see fit to put it in, a slight amendment can be made in the third line, and insert, after the word “sala- ry,” if you please, “compensation or emolu- ments of any office.” I should not raise any objection to that. That will depend upon the good sense of the members of the Convention. I do not believe that the General Assembly ought to be prohibited from changing the fees of certain officers. I do not think any very great abuses have ever taken place by changing the fees or compensation of officers. My im- pression is that the fees of probate judges have not been changed at all. If they have, they have not been materially changed since they were first established under our present Con- stitution. It is true, that recently the fees of recorders have been increased slightly, from ten cents per hundred words to twelve and a half cents, for recording deeds. That is not a very great increase, and recorders, in the majority of counties, are certainly not overpaid. The fees of justices, for the business they do, taking depositions, etc., have been increased, also, from ten cents to fifteen cents per hundred words. That is not a very great increase, and the compensation of justices has not been in- creased more than necessary. I do not see any good reason why this whole matter, in respect to fees and emoluments of officers, may not be left to the good sense of the General Assembly, without being restricted by the Constitution. Some gentlemen seem, in framing this Article, to have the idea that members of the General Assembly are all either knaves or fools, and that it is not safe to trust them with anything. I do not hold to such a doctrine. I believe, sometimes, we have members of the Legislature that are as capable of doing justice to the peo- ple of the State of Ohio as this Convention is, and will be as likely to do j ustice. I have known no very serious inconvenience that has arisen under our present Constitution, so far as the provisions of this section are concerned. I have known of but one instance when the terms of any officers have been extended beyond the statutory term limiting the office. That was once in the case of some auditors of the State. Their terms were extended for a short time so as to meet the necessities of the case, that the term of the auditor might expire after the sub- stantial work of the year had been accomplish- ed, and not put him out of office during the time when his substantial labors were being per- formed. I do not know that any injury has arisen to anybody by that extension. It is the only case that I now remember. I do not be- lieve that the General Assembly would extend the term of any officer unless the necessities of the case required it. I do not believe they would do it corruptly, or to the great injury of the people of the State. I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. NEAL. I would like to ask the gentle- man a question. Mr. HUMPIIREYILLE. Yes, sir. Mr. NEAL. Under the section as reported the Committee, which, I understand, he is in rL vor of, the Legislature is prohibited from chan<>* n g salaries. Now, I would like to know why he would have these fees changed, and not salaries ?' whether or n °t salaried officers are not quite as mudl entitled to the consideration of the people as o$ft ers who are P aid hy fees are ? Mr. HUMPHREY ille * 1 am not in favor of changing fees ; but 1 sa y that there is not so much danger in that; and 1 am willing to leave it to the good sense °f the General As- sembly, whether these shall changed or not. Mr. NEAL. Then I would \ ike to inquire: why not leave the other to the go? d sense of the General Assembly ? The officers that are paid by fees are ten to one of those paid^y salaries. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Under tf£ Pul- sion of the Constitution, as we are now flaming it, we have provided that almost all oP cers shall be paid by salaries. Mr. CLARK, of Ross. I move that we $ ke a recess. On this question a division was called fob which resulted — 33 for, and 21 against. So the motion was agreed to ; and the Conven- tion (at 12 : 30) took a recess. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention re-assembled at 2 : 30 p. m. Mr. SCOFIELD. With the leave of the Con- vention, I would like to introduce a little change in the proposition I presented, by striking out all after the word “after,” and inserting these words : “such persons shall have been elected or appointed.” It makes the proposition a little more brief, and, perhaps, more definite. If the Convention will grant leave, I shall make that change. Leave was granted. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the amendment as amended. Mr. SCRIBNER. 1 offer this amendment: “If any office, created by law, be abolished, the salary or compensation thereof shall thereupon cease and determine.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Scofield], to strike out all after the word “officer,” in line two, and insert the following: . “But shall, in no case, extend the term of office, or in- crease or diminish the salary, fees, or compensation of any person elected or appointed to any office or position under the Constitution or laws of this State, after such persons shall have been elected or appointed. If any office, created by law, he abolished, the salary attached thereto shall cease and determine.” 1199 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] Hitchcock, Burns. Upon this question the yeas and nays were demanded, taken, and resulted — yeas 38, nays 25, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Baber, Beer, Blose, Burns, Carbery, Chapin, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Cook, Cunningham, Greene, Herron, Hill, Hostetter, Johnson, Kerr, Mc- Cormick, Mitchener, Mullen, Neal, Phellis, Rickly, Root, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Sco- field, Scribner, Shultz, Thompson, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, West, White of Hocking, Young of Champaign, President — 38. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Andrews, Bosworth, Coats, De Stei- guer, Doan, Dorsey, Foran, Gardner, Hale, Hitchcock, Humphreville, Hunt, Miner, Muel- ler, Okey, Powell, Pratt, Russell of Musking- um, Townsend, Townsley, Van Valkenburgh, Van Yoorhis, Yoris, Waddle, Woodbury — 25. So the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. If there are no further amendments, the Secretary will read section 22. The Secretary read : “Sec. 22. The General Assembly shall determine by law, and before what authority, and in what manner, the trial of contested elections shall be conducted.” The PRESIDENT. If there are no amend- ments to section 22, the Secretary will read section 23. The Secretary read : “Sec. 23. No money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law; and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than two years. The purposes for which appropriation is made shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and any bill appropriating money shall be read, item by item, and a separate vote taken, by yeas and nays, on each item , and any item failing to receive a majority of the votes of all the members elected to the House where the bill is pend- ing, shall be stricken out, and no amendment to incorpor- ate any additional item into such bill, or to increase the amount of any item, shall be adopted, unless the same shall have received a like majority of all the members elected.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move the following as a substitute for section twenty- three. The Secretary read ; “Sec. 23. Money shall be drawn from the treasury only in pursuance of specific appropriation made by law, the purpose of which shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and no appropriation shall be for a longer period than two years. “Upon the passage of bills appropriating money, a separate vote upon any one or more items therein shall be had, by yeas and nays, entered on the Journal, upon the demand of one-fifth of the members of the House in which the same is pending, and each item failing to re- ceive the vote of a majority of all the members elected thereto shall be stricken from the bill.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I notice that the words, “upon such separate vote,” which I intended to have inserted after “item,” in the next to the last line, are not found in the printed copy. These words I desire to have retained as a part of the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the substitute. Mr. BURNS. I move to amend the substitute by striking out of line sixth the words “one- filth of the members,” and inserting “any mem- ber,” so that it will read: “Upon the passageof bills appropriating money a separate vote upon any one or more items shall be had by yeas and nays, entered on the Journal upon the demand of any member of the House in which it is pending, and each item upon such separate vote failing to receive the vote of a majority of all the members elected thereto shall be stricken from the bill.” If this amendment is to become a part of the section, it seems to me, in order to make it val- uable, those who desire the yeas and nays ought not to be prohibited because they may fail to get one-fifth of the members to make a demand therefor ; I desire that, on this particular ques- tion, it shall be the privilege and right of any member to demand the yeas and nays. A gen- tleman may excuse himself afterwards by say- ing that he was in favor of having the yeas and nays, but he could not get the one-fifth to sus- tain them. I desire to put it in the power of any member to demand the yeas and nays on this question. Mr. HITCHCOCK. The objection of the gentleman in its present form, and his reasons for favoring the change, would, to my mind, have greater force, were it not for the fact that, in the consideration of this bill previous to the time when it is put upon its passage, under the rule which has been adopted in section nine, any two persons have the right to demand the yeas and nays upon any question whatever; and all of these items being considered previous to the time this bill is put upon its passage, so far as recording their opposition to one or the other items of that bill, is concerned, there is full opportunity, upon the demand of two per- sons, that they shall be taken ; so that it seems to me that it obviates the objection which the gentleman raises, which is, that a member ought to have the right to record himself in opposition to any items in the appropriation bill. With regard to the substitute, I do not, at this time, desire to occupy the time of the Con- vention; nor will it be in order to do so upon this amendment moved by the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], any further than to call attention to what is sought to change in the original proposition by this substitute. That embraces two things which are not embraced in this proposition. One, the absolute require- ment of this vote upon each item upon the bill, and each proposition contained in the bill pre- vious to the time the bill shall be put upon its final passage, and the final vote upon the pas- sage of the bill in the aggregate, after this sep- arate vote which is provided for in this substi- tute. With regard to the provisions of this sec- tion great care is very properly taken ; and, while I have no doubt each member of this Con- vention will desire to reach the same ultimate result in regard to the Constitution providing for making appropriations, I find, in conversa- tion with different gentlemen, that we enter- tain very different views as to what the rule should be. With that view, I do not desire to take up the time of the Convention until I hear what is the desire of gentlemen upon this floor. The reading of this substitute shows the pur- pose to be that, when a bill has been finally read, or has been read the third time, and the question is, shall the bill pass ? The vote is taken upon the passage of the bill as upon the passage of all other bills, unless the members of the House in which the bill pending shall desire a separate vote upon one item, or upon any particular items, and that wish shall be made known, and the vote having been taken 1200 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Hitchcock, West, Burns, Scribner, Root. [Monday, upon all the parts of the bill to which this re- quest does not apply, then it will be separately taken upon those items. That is the object sought by the substitute. Mr. WEST. Will the gentleman permit the Secretary to read the proposed modifica- tion ? Mr. HITCHCOCK . Certainly. The Secretary read : “Upon the passage of bills appropriating money, or upon concurring in any amendment thereto, a separate vote upon any one or more items therein, shall, upon the de- mand of any member, be had by yeas and nays, entered upon the Journal, and every such item failing to receive the vote of a majority of all the members elected to the House in which the bill is pending shall be stricken there- from.” Mr. BURNS. Is that offered as a substitute ? The PRESIDENT. It has not been offered. It has been read for information. Mr. WEST. I shall offer. Mr. BURNS. That, I see, embraces the idea that I have embraced in my amendment ; there- fore, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. Leave was granted. Mr. SCRIBNER. I desire to offer an amend- ment to the original section, which I believe will take precedence of the substitute. The Secretary read : In line sixth, after the word “and”, where it first oc- curs, insert the words, “on the final reading.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner]. Mr. SCRIBNER. The object of that amend- ment is simply to make the original section con- form to what my understanding of it was when it was considered the other day — to make it provide that, on the final reading of bills ap- propriating money, the bill shall be read item by item, and a separate vote taken upon each item, and not make it necessary, after it has been acted upon, item by item, to take another vote upon the bill as an entirety. Mr. ROOT. It seems to me that the amend- ment proposed by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner] obviates all the objections that the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns], and the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], find in the proposition of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock]. This amendment, it will be observed, proposes that this vote on separate items be taken by yeas and nays on the final read- ing. Now, the effect of that will be that, on the final reading of a bill any person desiring the yeas and nays can have them. When the bill is gone through with, of course, the question will be on the bill as a whole on its final passage. The next thing before the final passage of a bill is its final reading, and, of course, these separate votes will be previous to the final read- ing. There should be no confusion. It will prevent confusion. I am reluctant to depart from the established proceedings of any body; but in a case where we think the very best mode of dealing with such questions has been ascer- tained by long experience, and which seems to be the very best mode, it would be dangerous to make a change. Mr. BURNS. I acted under a misapprehen- sion a moment ago. I supposed that the gen- tleman from Logan [Mr. West] had offered his proposition as an amendment. I understand that it was only read for information, and that it is not before the House. I, therefore, do not withdraw my amendment at this stage. Mr. WEST. I design to offer it as soon as I get the floor; and if the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root] will permit me to offer it now, I shall do so. Mr. ROOT. It makes no difference to me; and I do not wish to obstruct the gentlemen in anything they propose to do. What I way try- ing to reach was this: If the amendment pro- posed by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scrib- ner] prevails, if gentlemen will examine the section they will see all of their objections ob- viated. All that they seek for will be obtained by the amendment to the original section, of- fered by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scrib- ner], if that be agreed to. I shall proceed to state, and I shall do it very briefly, what the effect of this would be on the final reading, as it is read section by section. If any member desires a separate vote and demands it, it will be allowed to him. The practice now in Congress on appropriation bills is this — and these items are very numerous and often very large. On the first formal reading of a bill, when it comes from the Committee, notice is given by any member who desires a separate vote on any item or amendment, and when the House comes to consider it by separate sections such vote is had accordingly. If you carefully examine the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Lucas [Mr. Scribner] you will see that it amounts to that and no more. Mr. WEST. In the section as it now stands, is there a provision to demand a vote by any member? Mr. ROOT. The amendment I am speaking of. Mr. WEST. The amendment of the gentle- man from Lucas [Mr. Scribner] will not meet that. Mr. ROOT. I think it does. The trouble under the original section is this, in my mind, and I think, perhaps, the gentleman from Lo- gan [Mr. West] will see it in the same light: There is a little vagueness. It does not make it definite as to when and how the separate vote is to be taken. In the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], it is proposed that it shall be taken on the final read- ing, and not on the passage of the bill. It re- moves all that doubt. Mr. WEST. Is it peremptory in all cases ? Or must it be upon the demand of a member? Mr. DORSEY. Peremptory. Mr. ROOT. “ Any bill appropriating money shall be read item by item, and on final reading a separate vote shall be taken, by yeas and nays, on each item ; and any item failing to receive a majority,” &c. 1 believe the amendment does not extend quite so far as I supposed it did. It should be upon the demand of any member giv- ing notice, that a separate vote be required. I do not know that there is any necessity or pro- priety in requiring a separate vote on each item in the bill — requiring a vote of a majority of members elected to pass it — unless some one demands it, because on the final passage a vote of the majority is always required. Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1201 February 9 , 1874 .] Humphreville, Root, Hitchcock, West. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. All that the section requires is a majority vote. Mr. ROOT. I desire that on each item, if any member desires it, there thall be a separate vote ; and to pass, that there shall be a majority of all members elected. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], to insert in line six, after the word “ and,” the words, “ after final reading.” The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock.] Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understand that the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] moved to amend that, in the latter paragraph. Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. I take the proposition of the gentleman from Geauga ]Mr. Hitchcock], simply changing it in a few words. The object of the proposition is that the demand shall be made by any person on the final reading; and, if the gentleman will permit me, I shall state the object of it. His proposition precludes taking a vote by yeas and nays on the separate items, except upon the demand of one-fifth of the members. That destroys individual respon- sibility to the gentleman’s constituents. If each member may be permitted to make a de- mand, and if he fails to do so, he cannot go to his constituents and say that he wanted to vote by yeas and nays, but that he could not get one- fifth of the members of the House to concur with him. If he has the individual right, and he fails to make a demand, he is personally respon- sible to his constituents. He cannot screen himself behind the impossibility of obtaining the support of one-fifth of his colleagues to back him in the matter. It simply substitutes indi- vidual personal responsibility to the constitu- ency for a divided or multiplied responsibility. That is the sole objection to it. It was suggest- ed, a few days ago, that if it be made peremptory to take the yeas and nays upon each item, it would occupy several days, and many items would be carried unanimously, probably nearly all of them, and but few be objected to, and there would be no practical necessity of a sep- arate vote, by yeas and nays, upon each item. This substitute provides that, if there by any item in a bill to which any gentleman objects, he may demand the yeas and nays upon that item ; and if there be many items to which no member objects, there is no necessity for taking the yeas and nays on that item ; but if there be a single objection to any item, the member should have the privilege of demanding the yeas and nays upon that item, so as to ascertain whether that single item, standing alone, can receive these fifty-three or fifty-five votes, as the case may be. Now, if the yeas and nays be taken before the final passage, the amendment is attached by less than a majority; but it can not be passed, under this provision, by less than a majority; and, although gentlemen record their names for or against, that is not the ques- tion. The question is, has there been and is there shown, at any stage of the proceedings, an opportunity upon its final passage, or the final passage of that individual item, standing alone, a constitutional majority ? It is for the purpose of obtaining the privilege of showing v.h-78 that there is such a constitutional majority for a single item, and, at the same time, without the necessity of taking the yeas and nays upon an item to which nobody has any objection. That is the whole object of the amendment. The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not un- derstand that the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] has offered his amendment. Mr. WEST. Yes, sir ; I offer it. The Secretary read : “Upon the final passage of a bill appropriating money or upon concurring in any amendment thereto, a separate vote upon any one or more items therein, shall, upon the demand of any member, be had by yeas and nays, en- tered on the Journal. Every such item failing to receive a vote of the majority of all the members elected in the House in which the bill is pending, shall be stricken therefrom.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understand that the only difference, except in one point, that there is between the amendment of the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] and the one offered by myself is as to. the authority to call for this separate vote. While my convictions are not changed as to the rule which should be adopted, knowing that, as before stated, in a preceding stage in the consideration of the bill, each individual member has the opportunity, if he so desires, of making his record upon the Jour- nal, on the call of yeas and nays, yet I presume that the sentiment of the Convention in that regard is in opposition to the position taken, and, therefore, I agree in so much as relates to making demand by one member. Mr. BABER. Cannot this matter be com- promised by the insertion of a provision similar to the rule we have here, that if any member desires his vote recorded, if on demand, the yeas and nays are refused by one-flfth of the members present, he may still do so ? [“Not agreed.”] Mr. HITCHCOCK. There seems to be a general objection to that course. The insertion of these words, “ or upon concurring in any amendment thereto,” is not necessary in the amendment of the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West]. I suppose, upon the final passage of a bill, there can be no questions upon amendments in the House in which the bill is pending, and, therefore, this must necessarily refer to the bill as it comes from the other House. As the bill comes back from the other House, there is a pow- er, without this provision, to call for a separate vote upon the amendments that are recommend- ed, or have been agreed to, in the other House, and that a separate vote is almost invariably taken. The fact that the vote upon this amend- ment, or upon those amendments; settles the fate of the bill, and is, virtually, the passage of the bill, if it shall be concurred in in the House, necessarily requires the amendment to be made by a majority of all the members elected. Mr. WEST. Does not that depend upon the rules of the House simply? May there not be a combination to defeat the passage by chang- ing rules, so as to take a vote in the aggregate, instead of by sections? Cannot that be possi- ble? Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not understand it to be governed by the rules of the House. I understand it to be governed by the provision of the Constitution, which requires a majority 1202 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. West, Hitchcock, Eoot, Hoadly. [109th of all the members elected to concur in the passage of a bill. Mr. WEST. Concurring in the amendment coming from the other House? Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is necessary on concurrence in the passage of a bill. If either House fails to give the concurrence, by a major- ity of the members elected, it does not concur in the passage of the bill in that form. Mr. WEST. Might there not be a failure to call a division, if a combination were formed? Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the gentleman thinks that there might be danger of that, I have no special objection to a provision to prevent it, although not regarding it as necessary. Mr. ROOT. I wish the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] would look at his amendment, and see whether he can accept an amendment to it. I shall direct attention to it, if he will look. In the amendment, in line four, strike out the word “passage”, after the word “upon”, and insert the words “final read- ing.” Mr. HITCHCOCK. If I understand the pur- pose of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], and from remarks previously made by him I think I do, he desires to make this upon final reading, and then, that there shall be a subse- quent vote taken upon the passage of a bill as a whole. Do I understand the gentleman cor- rpptl v 9 Mi\ ROOT. Yes, sir. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I would not like to ac- cept the amendment of the gentleman with that view. I desire that this separate vote upon items shall be upon the final passage of the bill ; so that each item which is determined is thus finally determined, and does not depend upon the contingency of what may be the result of a vote upon other items which may be disposed of hereafter. Any other course is very likely to determine the course of many members when they come to vote upon the final passage of the bill as a whole. Mr. HOADLY. Does the gentleman succeed in accomplishing his object? Is not an amend- ment necessary ? Does not the section, as it is left by the delegate from Geauga [Mr. Hitch- cock], as well as it is left by the' delegate from Logan [Mr. West], leave it in doubt, after all, whether there is to be a further final vote, namely, on the whole bill, containing the sepa- rate items which are retained and not voted for on the separate vote; and ought there not to be a provision at the end, expressly providing that each separate item shall be declared passed, and that no vote shall be taken on the whole bill? Is not that necessary to accomplish the gentle- man’s purpose? I concur with him in the ob- ject he is desirous of getting at; but I am afraid he is not getting at it. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not think that there is any danger, as suggested by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly]. I may be mis- taken, however. It is upon the passage of bills appropriating money. Now, upon the passage the question is: “Shall the bill pass?” As for instance, the question before the Convention is, Shall a certain proposition be agreed to? There may be resolutions or propositions presented as a whole that contain several distinct proposi- tions. The gentleman lrom Hamilton [Mr. [Monday, Hoadly] asks a separate vote upon one of those propositions, to which he may be entitled under the rule. The vote is taken on the passage on agreeing to the proposition, except the item upon which the gentleman asks a separate vote. Then the vote is taken upon agreeing to that item, and that disposes of the whole question. I do not think that there is any danger as suggest- ed by the gentleman. I understand the gentle- man and myself agree as to the object sought. Mr. HOADLY. Entirely. Mr. HITCHCOCK. The gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], if I understood him, does not. He thinks there should be a final vote upon the passage of the whole bill. I think, as before said, in some remarks which I do not w r ish to repeat, that the very object sought to be gained by taking separate votes upon items, will be frustrated, if, subsequentlj r , there is a vote to be taken upon the passage of the entire bill, for the reason that, so long as men are constituted as they are, the result upon some item, which has been lost, will determine their course against the passage of a bill, ultimately. In my expe- rience, one thing is true, that it is, very fre- quently, harder to gain a sufficient majority for the passage of any law which ought to be made than to prevent the passage of a law that ought not to be enacted. The propriety of a measure does not determine the vote it will receive. Appropriations that ought to be made will, more frequently, fail, while those more doubtful will more easily secure votes, except where those propositions are to pay amounts that are speci- fied and fixed by law. I think a larger vote can, frequently, be secured for the passage of a bill which ought not to pass, than can be to se- I cure the passage of a bill that ought to pass, i The bills to which the gentleman from Hamil- ton [Mr. Hoadly] referred, the other day, are an illustration of this — a large number of which were passed at the last session of the General Assembly. Some fifty or seventy-five, granting special corporate powers, were bills of a char- I acter which, almost invariably, pass through j the General Assembly with scarcely any oppo- sition. at all. It is for this reason that the votes > of individuals are very liable to be turned, upon the final passage, against the bill, because their own favorite projects have been defeated, that we ought not to submit the bill, as a whole, to a vote upon the final passage, after having sever- ally determined upon the items thereof. Again, from the very necessity of the case, the provision of a section like this which w r e are ! attempting to secure in the present Constitu- tion, while it admits of grouping together in i the bill many appropriations and a large num- | ber of items, intimates that those items are of that separate character, and so little dependent upon one another, that a vote may, very prop- erly, be taken separately upon many, if not all, of these items. Having thus voted, at a time when no opportunity for amendment or change can be given, but when the question is upon the final passage of the bill; having once voted to pass what might, properly enough, constitute a j separate bill, why should we take a second vote i upon the passage of that bill? It, virtually, | amounts to that. Having voted to make a spe- cific appropriation, by the majority required in ' the Constitution, shall we turn around, and Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1203 February 9 , 1874 .] Hitchcock, Root. again vote to make that specific appropriation by a similar vote ? I do not know that the remark would be in order at present ; but if I am allowed I will say that, while I would prefer the section as it now stands, with the amendment of the gentle- man from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], to the origi- nal section, I would, very much, prefer the substitute amended, as proposed by the gentle- man from Logan [Mr. West], although that does not agree entirely with my views. I pre- fer it for the reason — and it is not a very im- portant one, perhaps — that, in a very brief space, in the first paragraph in this substitute, is expressed what occupies a much larger space in the original section, and yet this expresses it fully as clearly and definitely as it is express- ed in the other. Then I prefer it very much more, from the fact that, if it should be agreed to in this form, it does not compel this separate vote upon each item in the bill, but only allows that separate vote to be taken upon demand. That, as suggested by myself, when making some remarks the other day, was the principal point aimed at. That, while preferring that the vote should be only upon the demand of one- fifth, yet the difference between the smaller number and that, is the difference in time occu- pied. Some gentleman may demand this vote for the purpose of occupying the time of the House, to delay action. That, perhaps, is not a very important consideration. One other remark in this connection. It is of no very great consequence to this Convention what may have been the experience of any mem- ber before coming here. I listened, with some degree of interest, to the relation of the experi- ence of the gentleman from Butler [Mr. Camp- bell], the other day, and have frequently lis- tened, with great pleasure, to the experience of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], in the same direction. I do not wish to give my expe- rience in connection with legislation in making appropriations; but I do feel a greater interest in the subject, from the fact of having so often witnessed its workings, and I desire to repeat, what was said by me the other day, that appro- priations are not, ordinarily, made by the Gen- eral Assembly of Ohio with carelessness or recklessness ; but there is very great care exer- cised, very much time spent, and each item, almost, or a large majority of items, presented to either House, are very closely scrutinized ; and while a very large portion of the items pre- sented are proper subjects of appropriations, all are very carefully considered. In connection with this matter, I know that the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], early in the ses sion of this Convention, introduced a proposi- tion by which he sought to secure the same result. I understand that the gentleman, al- though never claiming any special experience in the subject, had conferred with others who had experience, and he was not satisfied with the scope of the original proposition, or the scope of the present section, as it stands, with- out any modification. The change which has since been made by the amendment of the gen- tleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner], does not well accomplish what he sought. Permit me to say, in addition, that I have had conference with a] gentleman that has had as much, or more, to do, perhaps, than any other man in the State of Ohio, in our Legislature, with making appropriations, and he fully agreed with me; and the substitute which I originally intro- duced, is in accordance with the recommenda- tions of that gentleman. Mr. ROOT. I find that the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], does not want the vote on separate items taken at a stage previous to the final passage of the bill. I shall, there- fore, not try to amend his amendment in this respect, though I think it would be well to have it done. Still, I discover from his amendment, and from the support that it receives, or the favor that has been given to it, that there is a disposition on the part of the Convention to dispense with a vote on the whole bill, on its final passage, by yeas and nays, requiring majority of all the members elected to the House in favor of its passage. That is sought to be got around and dispensed with. I hope that the Convention will do nothing of the kind. If you do that, sir, you will let go your sheet-anchor. I defy gentlemen to find in the history of any country that has a legislative body, where the legislative department of the government is carried on by a deliberative as- sembly, an instance of the kind. It is only when you have got all your pieces put together and constituted a whole bill, and the question is, “Shall this bill pass?” that we want the yeas and nays, above all things — that we want a majority of the whole body elected, and when you part with that, sir, I repeat, you throw away your sheet-anchor. You are all at sea. You establish a new precedent, or rather, you establish a new mode of legislation, utterly without precedent, and go upon an untried ex- periment, the result of which is, to me, suffi- ciently obvious. You foster, you contribute to, you invite log-rolling and corruption when you dispense with that. I believe it would be a good thing, at a stage previous, as shortly previous as you please — but at a different stage of the proceedings— to have separate votes on separate items, and to require a majority of the whole body to keep an item in its place. I believe that would be a good thing; but, if after having done that, you could take it and incorporate it as a part of the bill, and you are not to have another vote upon it on the final passage, I say you have purchased it too dearly, you have cast away a certain plan, before the sense of the body is ascertained, for what may be a mere trick. It would be a good thing where you know, as members may know, and as some members do know, that appropria- tion bills have influence, in that they depend upon each other, and depend upon log-rolling. It would be a good thing to call on men who voted for an appropriation of which they disap- proved in order to get in an appropriation which they had approved, to say that they are in favor of an appropriation they really disap- prove. Let them go on record where all the State, as well as their constituents, may see what they have done. You can very much better ac- complish it by a separate vote on separate items than you can by a vote upon the whole bill. But still, the vote upon the final passage of the bill is the more important, and it is the only safety you have against corrupt legislation, and 1204 [109th THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Root, Hitchcock, Sample, Hoadly. [Monday, that does not always secure safety. But I hope we shall never abandon it, but shall adhere to it; and for the sake of getting in incidentally the smaller advantage, the supposed advantage, we shall never yield up this great safety, that' upon the final passage of the bill there is to be a vote of the yeas and nays, and there must be a majority of the whole House to pass the bill. I do not know that instances amount to much, nor relations of our experience ; but I do make an appeal to any candid man who has had any experience in the Legislature of this State, or any other legislature, whether he does not know that it is the most practicable fact in the world, not to get the same members, but to get a majority lor one item that ought not to go into the bill, and a majority for any other item that ought not to go into the bill, and a majority for still another item that ought never to have found a place in the bill, and then have a bill that a majority of the House would no more dare vote for than they would dare stick their heads into a furnace. Better, much better, adhere to the legislative provision of the section as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from Lucas [Mr. Scribner] ; or even vote for the amendment than to add anything to make it a constitutional provision which shall dispense with a yea and nay vote on the final passage of the bill, and which shall dispense with a majority of the whole House elected thereto to pass a bill when it is consolidated. When we give that up, we give up our safety. I should regret, above all things, to have any provision adopted which would have the effect of dispensing with the final vote. Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the Convention will allow me, I shall accept the proposed modifica- tion of my substitute as suggested by the gen- tleman from Logan [Mr. West]. Leave was granted. The PRESIDENT. The proposition, as amended, is before the House. Mr. SAMPLE. I would like to have it read. The Secretary read : “Upon the passage of hills appropriating money, or npon concurring in any amendment thereto, a separate vote upon any one or more items therein, shall, upon de- mand of any member be had by yeas and nays entered upon the Journal, and every such item failing upon such separate vote to receive a vote of the majority of all the members elected to the House in which the bill is pend- ing, shall be stricken therefrom.” Mr. HOADLY. We have provided in the six- teenth section that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly ex- pressed in its title; this, it is true, is directory to the Legislature; but it is the expression of our own judgment of what is wise, and what should govern the General Assembly in its business. There is only one exception to it, as I understand it, and that grows out of the fact that appropriation bills, though several in their character, are classed as one subject, and named under one title. If it were practicable to have a separate bill for each appropriation, and pass each appropriation separately, I do not believe there is a member of this Convention, includ- ing the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], who would object to it; but would feel that it was a «reat reform. What those desire who think as I do, is to get the substance of the good that is in the idea of having the separate character of each appropriation separately put to a vote, without the delay and expense involved in hav- ing separate appropriation bills of each item. What the gentleman calls a sheet-anchor, it seems to me, is quite different. When several votes have been taken, and a majority has ex- pressed itself in favor of the appropriation — perhaps they have been unanimously carried in many cases — then comes an appropriation which is barely carried, then another bare- ly carried, and each by the votes of diff- erent members. The minority, under the gentleman’s sheet-anchor, of each of these minorities, uniting, make a majority to defeat the whole bill, and dictate to the members pro- visions inimical to the views of the real major- ity of the House, as a condition to the passage of those provisions against which nobody is op- posed. Mr. ROOT. Did the gentleman ever know a general appropriation bill to be defeated ? Mr. HOADLY. I have never been a member of the Legislature. I have known the President of the United States to be placed in this posi- tion : A bill having passed containing a provi- sion of which he must have disapproved, name- ly: the “backpay” to members of Congress, and another provision which it is known he did approve, his own increase of salary, was com- pelled, in order to save the virtue of the bill — his own increase — to allow the bill to go into force, although it increased the salary of mem- bers of Congress. I have known the Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations, in Con- gress, to avow, publicly, that he sacrificed his views and feelings in regard to that bill rather than to allow appropriations for the support of the Government to be defeated. I think there are instances in point in answer to the delegate from Erie [Mr. Root]. When the vote is taken by yeas and nays on the final passage of an ap- propriation bill, a single item that has received a majority of all the members, ought not to be again voted upon. It ought not to be subjected to the chance of being defeated, having received this majority, because other items, that ought not to receive a majority, are stricken from the bill. Mr. ROOT. I understand the gentleman to say that the President of the United States was obliged to approve the bill, though it contained items which everybody knows he must have been opposed to. Mr. HOADLY. Ought to have been op- posed to. Mr. ROOT. I would inquire the source of the gentleman’s information? Mr. HOADLY. I have none. I am going on general moral principles, in which my edu- cation has been largely developed, owing to the contiguity of my seat to that of the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root]. I should have said ought , instead of must — that is all. It is clear if we can work this out in a practi- cal way, and for that I depend upon the delegate from Logan [Mr. West], and the delegate from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], and the delegate from Erie [Mr. Root], we will accomplish a great reform. I admit the delegate from Erie [Mr. Root] is right in saying that the danger is im- mensely diminished by directing the yeas and THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Hoadly, Burns, Humphreville, Mueller, etc. 1205 Day.] February 9, 1874.] nays upon final passage. When a man is called to vote upon the final passage of an item, and that vote is a final vote, and the question is, shall I trade away my vote on this item for the promise of a vote upon another? the possibility of bargaining is what no human legislation, no constitutional provision, can prevent. As the delegate from Preble [Mr. Barnet] said to me the other day, you can correct that evil only by abolishing legislation. That, I admit; but, Mr. President, does not the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], know that when the vote is a final one, and there is no chance for a further trade, and that it will go into the law, and he cannot use the passage of it as a means, afterwards, by saying, I shall go back on this if the promise is not kept — I shall go back upon this if some- thing else is not done — Does not the delegate see that the opportunity for trading is enor- mously diminished ? It turns an appropriation bill, as nearly as it is practicable for human legislation to do, into what it really is, a con- geries of separate items having no necessary connection. ' Therefore, the passage of one ought not in any sense, to depend upon the pas- sage of another. Suppose we take the gentle- man’s idea that there is to be a final vote. What does the restriction amount to? What is the clause good for? Men that have been disap- pointed, will try to defeat the ordinary appro- priations for the support of the government, unless the other members of the real majority of the Legislature yield to them ; there will be cases, if there have been none already, in which the minority will have the majority by the throat, and will dictate to them the passage of appropriation bills containing items which the majority do not want to have thrust upon them. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adoption of the substitute of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], as amended by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West]. The Secretary read : “Money shall be drawn from the treasm-y only in pur- suance of a specific appropriation, made by law, the pur- pose of which shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and no appropriation shall be for a longer period than two years. Upon the passage of bills appropriating money, or upon concurring in any amendments thereto, a separate vote upon any one or more items therein, shall, upon demand of any member be had, by yeas and nays, entered on the Journal; and every such item failing, upon such separate vote, to receive the vote of a majority of all the membrs elected to the House, in which the bill is pending, shall be stricken therefrom.” Mr. BURNS. Do I understand this, as it now stands, to be a substitute for the whole of section twenty-three? The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the striking out of section twenty-three and insert- ing the substitute offered by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], as amended. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Is it in order now to offer an amendment to the original section? The PRESIDENT. It is in order. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I send up the fol- lowing, which, I think, will meet the objection of the gentleman, and make the thing more definite. The Secretary read : Add at the end of line eight the words: “and each item receiving such majority shall be considered as passed without another vote.” The motion was agreed to. Mr. MUELLER. I offer the following amend- ment to section 23 : In line seven, after the word “item”, insert, “provided such yeas and nays are demanded.” The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read section twenty-three as now amended. The Secretary read : “No money shall he drawn from the treasury, except in pursuance of a specific appropriation, made by law, and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than two years. The purpose for which the appropriation is made shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and any bill appropriating money shall be read, item by item, and upon the final reading a separate vote shall be tafcen, by yeas and nays, on each item, and any item failing to receive a majority of the votes of all the members elected to the House where the bill is pending, shall be stricken out, and each item receiving such a majority shall be considered as passed without another vote; and no amendment to incorporate any additional item into such bill, or to increase the amount of any item, shall be adopted unless the same shall have received a like major- ity of all the members elected.” Mr. HOADLY. I move to amend the substi- tute by adding at the end thereof, these words : “ and each item receiving such a majority shall be declared passed by such House.” The object of the amendment is to make it conform with the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphreville], to the original section, and already adopted. The PRESIDENT. The question will be upon adding the amendment to the substitute. Mr. ROOT. I desire the yeas and nays upon that section. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I desire to make an inquiry. There was an important provision re- ported by the Committee, and stricken out by the Committee of the Whole, with the under- standing that it would be inserted somewhere, and not be abandoned. I would like to inquire of the Chairman of this Committee, what has become of this provision ? The provision I refer to is the one that no appropriation shall be made by the Legislature, the subject matter of which has not been provided for by law pre- vious to the appropriation. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. That is still in the bill in the twenty-fourth section. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out section 23 and inserting the sub- stitute. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I ask for a division of the question. Mr. HERRON. If I understand the meaning of the provision, it is to defeat combinations in appropriation bills, and the result is simply this, that all these gentlemen, whose items will be voted down, will combine to defeat the ap- propriation bills, until they are restored. We are simply giving rise to a new combination to defeat appropriation bills, instead of the old one. Mr. NEAL. How in the world is that diffi- culty to be obviated by requiring the yeas and nays to be called on every item ? Mr. HERRON. They will then be done in their order, and every item that receives a ma- jority will pass without any further vote. Under the other provision, these items, on which a separate vote is required, may be required to 1206 THE LEGISLATIVE, DEPARTMENT. [109th Hitchcock, Herron, Burns, Mueller, West, etc. [Monday, be voted upon, and, if they are defeated, their friends will withdraw them. Mr. HITCHCOCK. The objection urged by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Herron] may have some force, if the course he points out is the one which would be pursued ; but if that course was pursued, it would be in direct oppo- sition to all practice. I doubt if the gentleman ever knew, certainly I am confident that I never knew, an instance ^in the Legislature, and doubt whether he ever did in any other deliber- ative body, where, a series of resolutions being presented for consideration, and a separate vote was asked upon any one of those resolutions, that separate vote was taken until the body of the resolutions had been disposed of. Hence, from the very wording of this provision, if I can understand this wording, and it was drawn with special reference to this result. - “Upon the passage of the bill.” Upon the question, “Shall the bill pass?” a separate vote is asked for upon certain items in that bill, then the question will be, Shall the bill pass ? except as to the item 2, 5, 10, as the case may be, and the vote is first taken upon the passage of the bill, with these exceptions, and then the separate vote is taken upon the items excepted. This is one of the advantages of the plan, in that these disputed items cannot affect the passage of the bill as far as it relates to other items. I know that the judgment of the gentleman may be superior to mine; but I am constrained to urge what I know to be true, and what would be almost necessarily the rule adopted, to gov- ern the action of the two Houses in the consid- eration of appropriation bills. Mr. HERRON. I would like to ask the gen- tleman whether there is anything preventing the House or Senate requiring that the vote be first taken upon those provisions upon which a separate vote is asked ? Mr. HITCHCOCK. Not any specific pro- vision in the Constitution. That question will probably be determined by the rules; but I hardly think that any body of men passing upon any proposition or upon a number of propo- sitions, because one member alone of that body may desire that a provision may be subjected to a separate vote, will agree that that separate vote shall be taken at a particular time, to ac- commodate that one member. It seems to me that would be a conclusion without much prob- ability of correctness. I think the gentleman from Lawrence [Mr. Neal] stated the real differ- ence between the two parallel positions in com- paring the substitute proposed with the original proposition as to its arrangement and expres- sion. They differ somewhat, so far as the first paragraph is concerned. As before said, that paragraph expresses the same idea much more briefly, and, it appears to me, fully as distinctly. Further than that, I do not wish to say, having prepared the substitute myself. There are really two points of difference in the propositions. One, as stated by the gentle- man from Lawrence [Mr. Neal], and the other in reference to the use of the words, “ final reading,” and ‘‘upon the passage.” The latter, appears to me, is much more definite than the other. I understand very well that the passage of the bill comes after the final or third reading, but I understand just as well that upon the third reading, the bill is open to amendment, and whenever a bill is put upon its final passage it is not open to amendment. The difference, and I regard it as a difference of some little importance, is, whether the words “ upon the passage of this bill,” are used. If so, rules to carry out these provisions of the Constitution will be made in accordance with the suggestion that has been heretofore made, providing that this separate vote may be demanded when the House comes to the passage of the bill, and not immediately after the final reading when it is still open to amendment, by instructions or otherwise. The real difference of importance between the two propositions — the question to be determined is : Shall we say in this consti- tutional provision, that absolutely no item of any appropriation bill of a larger or smaller amount, whether of greater or of lesser impor- tance, whether an amount absolutely fixed by law, or not so fixed, shall be passed except upon a separate, specific vote ; or, shall such specific vote only be had upon items when demanded ? Mr. BURNS. I have an amendment to be added at the end of the section. The Secretary read : “A general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the ordinary expense of the Exec- tive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments of the State, and of the behevolent, punitive, and reformatory institu- tions thereof; for the payment of the public debt and in- terest thereon, and for public schools. All other appro- priations shall be made by separate bills, each embodying but one subject.” Mr. MUELLER. I raise'a question of order. That amendment cannot be made. The Con- vention has decided not to strike out the sec- tion. That is the end of it for the present. The PRESIDENT. It is competent to add to the section. The practice has been to per- mit amendment by addition. The amendment of the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Burns] is, therefore, in order. Mr. WEST. 1 rise to make a request of some gentleman. I really feel that there is a neces- sity for doing it. The twenty-third section as it is made up, is composed of amendments made in Committee of the V^holejand which were put together in a disorderly manner. I really would not like to see it go out as the work of this Convention as it is now. Nobody is responsi- ble for it in particular; but it is the result of ‘ those things which almost always occur. 1 sug- gest that some gentleman move a reconsideration . of that vote and strike out of the substitute of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], the words “on demand of any member,” and then it will be harmonious and accord with the will of the Convention. The section is so much more condensed, so much more clear and spe- sific, that there can be no mistake about it. Mr. DORSEY. I ask to have section twenty- three read precisely as it stands, in order that we may see whether it is so incongruous as is sup- posed. Mr. TUTTLE. I move to reconsider the vote upon striking out section twenty-three. The Secretary then read section twenty- three, as follows ; “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, except in pursuance of a specific appropriation, made by law, and no appropriation shell be made lor a longer period than two years. The purpose for which the appropriation is made shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and any bill 1207 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] West, Cook, Russell of Meigs, Cunningham. appropriating money shall be read, item by item, and on the linal reading a separate vote taken, by yeas and nays, on each item ; and any item failing to receive a majority of the votes of all the members elected to the House where the bill is pending, shall be stricken out, and each item receiving such majority shall be considered as passed without any other vote, and no amendment to in- corporate any additional item into such bill, or to increase the amount of any item, shall be adopted, unless, the same shall have received a like majority ol all the members elected.” The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the result of the vote upon striking out section twenty-three, was announced as yeas 34, nays 37^ but since that time an error has been dis- covered, and the true result is, yeas 34, nays 36. The question is now upon the motion of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Tuttle] to re- consider the vote taken upon striking out sec- tion twenty-three. Upon which motion the yeas and nays were demanded. Mr. WEST. I move that that motion be laid on the table for the present. Mr. COOK. I would suggest to the friends of this measure that it is late in the evening now, and if this section were re-committed to the Committee on the Judicial Department, with the understanding that it should not lose its place on the calendar, the Committee could, probably, by to-morrow morning, report a sec- tion that would be satisfactory to all parties. I do not think we should lose any time by do- ing so. Mr. WEST. And we could work away a while on the other sections. The yeas and nays were demanded upon the motion to lay on the table. Objection was rais- ed, and as only eight gentleman rose to support the demand, it was not sustained. The question was then taken upon the motion to lay on the table, the motion to reconsider the vote upon striking out section twenty- three. Upon a division, thirty-three gentlemen voted in the affirmative, and twenty-nine in the nega- tive. So the motion was agreed to, and the mo- tion to reconsider was, therefore, laid on the table. The Secretary then read section twenty-four as follows : “No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, E ublic agent, or contractor, after the service shall have een rendered, or the contract entered into, nor shall any money be paid on any claim, the subject matter of which shall not nave been provided for by pre-existing law. un- less such compensation or claim be allowed by two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly. No such allowance shall be made, except by bill, and no such bill shall embrace several items, or dif- ferent items of compensation or claim, and every appro- priation for the payment of any such compensation or claim included in any act making several appropriations shall be void.” Mr. RUSSELL, of Meigs. I move to strike out all after the word “Assembly,” in the sixth line. I do not desire to detain the Convention but a few moments in discussing this amend- ment. I have two reasons for' offering this. My first reason is, that we ought not to tie up, as it were, the hands of the Legislature, and prevent them from passing any appropriation bill for appropriating money for claims not provided for by pre-existing law, and from in- cluding more than one item or claim. Now, this matter of one item, if it is to be construed strictly, means but a single article of account. You cannot include different items, and no matter what shall transpire; no matter what claims should be brought against the State, or what valid claims any party might have, every single item of that claim would have to be put in a separate bill. Now, if there is any reason, if there is any just cause for it, or if our Legis- lature lias, in its acts, heretofore, so far disre- garded its duty as that it has become necessary for us to guard every single item of their ap- propriations, it is beyond any information that I have. Why is it necessary to have inserted in this Constitution a provision that no item shall be provided for if not provided for by pre-existing law? No bill shall be passed including any item more than one, because the claim or demand has not arisen or been provid- ed for by pre-existing law. I can see no reason for it, and with the present restrictions, which we have already placed upon the Legisla- ture, by section twenty-four, requiring each one of these items to be separately voted on, in every bill passed by the Legislature, there can- not be any reason for any such restriction as this. If there is any reason for it; if it is necessary to guard the portals of the Legisla- ture to prevent them from making appropria- tions— if is is necessary, in other words, to prohibit the people, through the Legislature, from making appropriations for valid claims, unless each and every one of them shall be provided for in a separate bill, it is more than I can understand. It is a reason — if there is any reason for it— which I am not able to per- ceive. Now, in the second place — and it is a matter which ought to be weighed well by this Con- vention— there is a class of claims urged at present against the State, known as the Morgan raid claims, and for which, I fear, this provision was introduced by the Committee on Leg- islative Department, to prevent the Legislature from ever making any appropriation on these claims and accounts. Now, whatever may be the reason for bringing the claims forward, and whatever may be the nature of the claims, they are claims that are presented by a large portion, I will say, of the people living in certain por- tions of the State. They are claims that grew out of incursions made by a band of rebels go- ing through the State. Some of them are prob- ably valid claims against the United States, and some are probably valid claims against the State of Ohio, while others are claims that have been disputed from the first, and have never been allowed at all. If this provision is intro- duced into the Constitution, it will forever pro- hibit the Legislature from making any appro- priation for them whatever. Mr. CUNN INGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. RUSSELL, of Meigs. Certainly, I will. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Could not these claims, if they are just and should properly be paid, be provided for by law ? Mr. RUSSELL, of Meigs. Is that all your question ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is all. Mr. RUSSELL, of Meigs. Certainly they could be; but it would be such an endless job that the Legislature could not finish the appro- priation for one year, unless they sat there and did nothing else. I say it is impracticable. 1208 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Russell of Meigs, Tuttle. [Monday, That is what I say. It cannot be done, or will not be done, by any Legislature that will ever sit in Ohio. Now, I am not here to discuss the propriety, or the impropriety, of the State pay- ing these claims. I say, we have thrown around the Legislature a sufficient guard to keep the Legislature from ever paying them. The present Constitution requires a two-thirds vote on such claims, and under this provision they never will be paid. But gentlemen are not satisfied with that prohibition. They wish to place in the Constitution a provision which will absolutely and forever prohibit any provi- sion being made for them under any cir- cumstances whatever. Now, as a matter of practicability, as a matter of policy, I ask ought this Convention, for the purpose of cutting off certain claims, claims in existence at present, to make any such provision ? Secondly, if we do pass such a provision, what will be the result? Why it was asserted here by the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], the other day, that there were over fifty thousand votes in Southern Ohio that any Governor would lose if he should ever veto a bill in which this appropriation was pro- vided for. Taking, then, that gentleman’s as- sertion that fifty thousand voters are interested in this proposition, is it not probable that they, on the day of election, with the provision in the Constitution submitted to them, will go up and vote solid against it? Then look over the State of Ohio, and consider the other objectionable features that will be found to every article, and where will you have your Constitution adopted ? Then, I say, as a matter of policy alone, we ought to hesitate about inserting this provision, for every man who is interested in any one of these claims, and every one of his neighbors, will look upon it as a direct thrust at him. They may say: “We could not get them paid under the old Constitution, but we do not propose that any Constitutional Convention or Legislature shall thrust any such insult as that into our faces. You, gentlemen of the Convention, know that these claims are inexistence; we believe they are valid claims, and we have pre- sented them against the State of Ohio as such. We hold them to-day as such. If you will not pay them, you cannot expect us to vote for a Constitution that will load down the Legislature worse than they now are, so that they never can make any appropriation whatever. Now, I say, as a matter of policy, if gentlemen expect this Constitution to be adopted, and, in view of the objections that will arise in different portions of the State, probably against every Article, we ‘ ought not to insert a provision here which, as j the gentleman from Logan [Mr. West], has! said, will create an opposition to any man or Constitution of fifty thousand votes. It seems I to me that it would be the worst folly in the world. Gentlemen may say : “But these claims are of no account ; the State never ought to pay them.” I am not arguing that question. Icare| not, so far as this argument is concerned, | whether the State ought to pay them or not. So far as the legal question is concerned, I am not ! discussing that. I say if you place the last por- j tion of this Article in the Constitution, and submit it to the people, you will find out that, in eighteen or twenty counties of this State you | will receive an almost solid vote against it. Mr. TUTTLE. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly. Mr. TUTTLE. Does the gentleman think that, in that part of the State, it would be de- sired to make these claims a question bearing upon everything else, alter the whole policy of the Constitution in so far as it requires what is here required, that when an allowance is made it should be made by bill, and not by joint resolution ? Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think the gentle- man understands my position at all, or I do not understand him. I do not ask, nor do I believe that any one of these men would ask, that pro- vision be made separately, or differently, on their account. This is not what I am arguing. I say these men may say: “We have claims, and you, gentlemen of the Convention, knew it. You place this restriction upon the action of the Legislature, adding on a greater restric- tion than was found in the old Constitution in regard to these claims not provided for by a pre-existing law ; and you propose now to load them down with another amendment, so that it will be impossible ever to pass them through the Legislature. Mr. TUTTLE. It is already provided that every law that is passed shall be by bill. Does the gentleman think that the allowance of these claims would not, in some way or other, involve the passage of a law, or that there is any way by which they could ever be paid until a law were, in some form, passed establishing the va- lidity of these claims? Does the gentleman claim that there is now any law by which they are entitled to be paid, and that they ever can be paid until there is a law ? And does not the Constitution, as the Article now stands, require that every law that is passed, shall be passed by bill? Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman is too deep for me. I have been listening, trying to dis- cover some point. I do not doubt but that ev- ery appropriation must be made by bill. That is provided for in section 24. Mr. TUTTLE. Not every appropriation, but every law passed. Mr. RUSSELL. Well, every law passed, then; and every appropriation shall be by bill. But you do not stop at this. That is what I am complaining of. You go on and say that no bill shall contain more than one item for the payment of these claims. Does the gentleman see the distinction ? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman’s time is up. By unanimous consent, the gentleman was allowed to proceed. Mr. RUSSELL. I am sorry to trespass upon the time of the Convention. Under section 24, all other appropriations, all bills for other pur- poses, may contain a thousand items, or as many as you choose to add ; but when you come to this class of claims, that require a two- thirds vote of the Legislature, you go on to say that these shall contain but one item or claim. Now, the gentleman has been on the bench, and I want to ask him what is meant by that word “ item ” there ? Mr. TUTTLE. I do not want to make a speech at this time. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Russell of Meigs, Hale. 1209 Day.] February 9 , 1874 .] Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. I should dislike very much to stand up here and wait until you got through with the speech. I will say, however, what I understand by the meaning of this word “ item.’ 1 It is a single charge, such as a merchant would make when there are several things bought. Each one of them would constitute an item, and that is what is intended by this section. Why did the gentle- men who were on the Legislative Committee, wish to restrict this class of claims, and place them upon a different footing from other claims ? Why was it desired that a claim, be- cause it had not been provided for by pre-exist- ing law, should be provided for by bill, with only one item in a single bill? Mr. HALE. A man’s claim need not be itemized. Mr. RUSSELL. This says : “ no such allow- ance shall be made, except by bill, and no such bill shall embrace several or different items,” — that is, different items of claim. Mr. HALE. Different items of compensa- tion or claim. Mr. RUSSELL. Well, if that does not mean, under the ordinary construction of the Eng- lish language, that the bill cannot contain but one single item, then I cannot understand it. There must be some mystery about this lan- guage used by the gentlemen of the Legislative Committee, that I am unable to understand. Mr. HALE. I am not upon that Committee. Mr. RUSSELL. That is just what I thought. As my friend from Hamilton here suggests, it does mean that, and cannot mean anything else. Why do the Committee desire this restriction when these claims have been presented, and when they are known to exist? No other claims over the State are urged, and the gentle- men of the Committee must have had these in their eyes at the time. It must have been their very object, practically to prohibit any appro- priation for the payment of these claims, in placing them in such a situation that they must require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature be- fore any payment could be made, and then re- quiring that every bill shall contain only a sin- gle item. I say that this shows, at once, that the provision was aimed expressly at these claims, and so it will be taken throughout all the dis- trict from which they are urged. If gentlemen are so desirous of having the Constitution re- ceive this opposition — why, insert the provision, and you will receive it, surely. If you do not, then strike it out. As I was saying, as far as the claims are concerned, I do not believe they will be paid by the State, and have not believed it. But that has nothing to do with it. If you place this in your Constitution, you simply strike a blow at these men, whoever they are, which is undeserved. There never was anything done, except the combination that was attempted last winter in the Legislature — and that I will admit — but while I felt some interest in that direction, I was sorry the opposition was made. I think it was made in the Legislature during an exciting time ; and I know that it did not accord with the wishes of the people in the section of the State that had been ravaged by Morgan and his men. I know they were sorry this combination was made in the Legislature. They went up there and asked for an appropriation fairly; they did not send any lobbies last winter. But it was owing to the excitement of the members of the Legislature from that section of the State, that they undertook to form this combination, and it was not a combination that was wished for, or desired, or encouraged, by the people through that section. They wished the appropriation to be made fairly, if it could be done; and I know that I heard an expression from a large portion of the people in my county. When the com- bination broke up in the Legislature they said they were glad of it. Men who had suffered, and who had put in claims for more than a thou- sand dollars, did not ask for payment in any such way. They believed their claims were good claims; and they believed that if the State had paid them in the first place, the General Government would afterwards have paid them, and all would have been settled. And many of them believe still that they have a just claim against the State. Why, then, do you wish to insert this restriction when there is no need of it? I will say that in all the legislation that has ever been enacted, to my knowledge, since the destruction of this property, there never has been any lobbying in the Legislature to pass it through. The members from that por- tion of the State have worked for it, and the members from this county of Hamilton have always been generous in regard to it, and have always supported it. But the fight seems to be conducted by one section of the State against another. The northern portion of the State are almost a unit against it, while the southern portion of the State are in favor of it. Well, now, I see no reason why we ought to place anything in this Article which we propose to submit to the people that will bring upon us any such war as that — bring down against our Constitution the votes of from fifty to sixty thous- and people in this State. There is no reason for it. The matter is well enough guarded against at present. If more than two-thirds of the Legislature would decide to pay a claim of that kind, I think it would be according to justice and equity that it should be paid. As is suggested by the gentleman from Law- rence [Mr. Neal] it is an addition to the present Constitution. It it not required for any other purpose. If it is, I should like the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Department to state it, so that I may be able to understand it. If there is any other reason for it, except to obstruct the road which these men expect to travel, in obtaining redress for the wrongs and injuries they have suffered, I should like to be made aware of it. I know there is a strong feeling on this subject. There are men in the section of the State alluded to who lost every dollar they had in the world. Their houses were burnt; and in cases where they kept stores, their store-goods were taken out and strewed in the streets by the soldiers, and they themselves were ruined. Well, do you suppose these men will vote for your Constitu- tion, when you endeavor to place upon them any such restriction as is proposed? Hundreds and thousands of them, I will say, were ruined just by that raid. Of course, they have the bitter feeling of all men on subjects of that 1210 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [109th Russell of Meigs, Humphreville, Dorsey, Pond, Burns, Cook. [Monday, kind. You touch a man’s property, and you touch the nearest point to his heart. Now, there is one other reason why these men feel a little more as though the State of Ohio ought to pay this bill, and which makes them feel a little bitterer, probably, than they otherwise would. At the time Morgan started through Ohio, the Governor undertook to man- age the militia, and to manage it, as bethought, for the interests of the State and for the interests of the people. He called out all the militia that was organized throughout the southern portion of the State, when Morgan was making his raids. He called them to Marietta, or Chilli- cothe, or some other point, and Morgan always took good care not to go near them; and while the Governor had his fifteen or twenty or thirty thousand militia penned up, armed, at Marietta, Chillicothe, and other points, where Morgan never went, Morgan was raiding through the country, and was taking every- thing from the homes of the very men whom Brough had in the service there, and who were thus compelled to leave their homes and families unprotected. When they returned, they found all their property destroyed ; and wherever Morgan had been along, taking away all their good horses, and leaving poor ones in place of them, the Governor’s men afterwards came along and took what was left, leaving them without anything. Now, I think they deserve a little better consideration than they have received at the hands of this Committee. I think they ought to be credited for their resistance to Morgan ; for this was the only place throughout the whole path of the raid, right along southern Ohio, where Morgan ever received a blow from anybody, organized or unorganized, until he came to Buckingham’s Island. I shall look anxiously to the gentlemen who proposed this amendment for an explanation of the reasons why they attempted to introduce it into the Constitution. Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Does the gentleman suppose that, because citizens of the State may have suffered by the raid of Morgan, it there- fore devolves upon the State to pay for their losses? If the duty of paying for them devolves upon anybody, it devolves upon the General Government. Why not apply to Congress for payment? It was the war of the United States, and not of this State; and the State of Ohio is no more liable to pay for those losses than the State of Indiana or the State of Wisconsin. Mr. RUSSELL. The State of Indiana did pay theirs. Mr. DORSEY. Congress paid for them. Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir; it was the State. The PRESIDENT. Morgan’s raid, gentle- men, is not exactly the question before the Convention. The gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Pond], ob- tained the floor. Mr. BURNS. There is a Morgan raider be- fore the Convention now. Mr. POND. I am not going to speak special- ly upon Morgan’s raid, my friend. What I want to call the attention of the Convention to, is this : whether the provisions, sought to be in- corporated here, are necessary or not? The section provides that “ no such allowance shall be made, except by bill.” That, I apprehend, has already been provided for, by the amend- ment of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock], made to a section passed on Satur- day. All laws and everything that has the ef- fect and force of law, must be by bill. That is all fixed ; but let us look a little further : “ and no such bill shall embrace several, or different items of compensation or claim.” Now, what objection is there to every appropriation bill containing different items of these claims, or any items of these claims, or any other claims, after what the Convention has substantially agreed upon, as to what shall go into the twenty- third section, which, as I understand it, is that either peremptorily or upon demand of any member of either House of the General Assem- bly, the vote is to be taken upon each item of the appropriation bill. Suppose, then, any item coming under this class, should be includ- ed in the general or partial appropriation bill, or any other bill ; or suppose a bill was intro- duced that should include quite a number of these items not provided for by pre-existing law, then a vote may be taken separately ; and it must be so taken, if the Convention agree to establish that as the rule; and in the other case, the vote may be taken upon demand of any one member. But, independently of this, it would require two-thirds of the members elected to the House, where the bill is pending, to pass one of these items, because they will not have been provided for by pre-existing law; and the vote will there be taken, under the pro- visions of section 23, with just as much certain- ty as it can be if this provision remains. So that I see no reason for this other clause : “ and no such bill shall embrace several or different items of compensation or claim.” We have already provided that if the bill does embrace several different items, they may be voted on separately. Why not save the time that would thus be taken up? Is it not a great saving of time to have these different claims included in one bill, inasmuch as you provide that a separ- ate vote must or may be had upon them ? The other provision, added by the Commit- tee here, provides that “every appropriation for the payment of any such compensation or claim, included in any act making several ap- propriations, shall be void.” I can see no ne- cessity for that. Under the provisions of the 23d section, you vote independently and separ- ately upon each item. If it passes by a two- thirds vote, it may as well pass in any other bill, coupled with other provisions, as to be passed separately, causing the time and trouble of a first, second and third reading, and the additional votes necessary to carry it through. For that reason it appears to me unnecessary. Mr. WEST. I offer an amendment to be in- serted in lieu of what is proposed to be stricken out, in the event that it is stricken out. The Secretary read : “But no such compensation or claim shall be included in auy partial or general appropriation bill, making pro- vision for the ordinary expenses of the government and its institutions.” Mr. COOK. I ask that the Secretary may read the words proposed to be stricken out. The Secretary read : 1211 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 9, 1874.] West, Tuttle, Russell of Meigs, Mueller. “No such allowance shall he made except by bill, and no such bill shall embrace several or different items of compensation or claim, and every appropriation for the payment of any such compensation or claim, included in any act making several appropriations shall be void.” The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking out the words just read. Mr. WEST. I wish to explain the amend- ment I offered to the motion of the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Russell], namely : that no such claim or compensation, not provided for by pre- existing law, shall be included in any general or partial appropriation bill making provision for the current expenses of the State Govern- ment. It is plain and simple. It is intended to provide that the fate of no general appropri- ation bill shall be made to depend upon the fate of any claim of this kind. This provision will keep the two things separate, and, if inserted, will obviate the trouble which the gentleman from Meigs seems to anticipate in regard to the matter. Those claims will not be mixed in with the general appropriation bill, or any part of the general appropriation bill. Mr. TUTTLE. It seems to me that, in this portion of the section, as it was originally re- ported from the Committee, there is a principle that ought not to be got rid of; and one which, perhaps, would not be inconsistent with the object which the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Russell] desires to accomplish. It seems to me, for instance, that no law, by which the payment of claims against the State should be authorized, ought to embrace claims founded upon entirely different, or distinct, considerations. I do not know of any particular claim which now sug- gests itself, and yet, I think, I can suggest very many. A man may have undertaken the erec- tion of a public building — a lunatic asylum, for instance — and he finds that there has been some mistake about the compensation to be allowed him, or that, for some reason, his compensation is not what it ought to have been, and he thinks he has an equitable claim against the State for additional compensation. Mr. RUSSELL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question, right there? Mr. TUTTLE. Yes, sir. Mr. RUSSELL. The former part of this sec- tion prohibits the Legislature from ever paying any additional money on such a contract. It says : “ No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, public agent, or contractor, after the service shall have been rendered, or the con- tract entered into.” Would not that be broad enough to cover his claim ? Mr. TUTTLE. I do not understand that that prohibition is absolute. It provides that the extra compensation shall not be made except by a vote of two-thirds. I understand that clause relating to the two- thirds vote, as applying to all claims against the State, and I think that has been the understanding of the Committee. To proceed, then, with my illustration. An- other builder in another part of the State, has built another building for another lunatic asylum, and he prefers a similar claim. Now, I think it highly important that these two claimants and their respective friends should not be invited to join teams and bargain to- gether to get their respective claims through, each assisting the other in return for assistance rendered to himself. They are claims having no connection with each other. One of them might stand and the other fall, entirely consis- tent with some principle to be adopted by the Legislature in determining upon both. And for the same reason, I should suppose that if a claim be made against the State on account of the injuries referred to by the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Russell], and another of the kind that I have suggested be made, it ought not to be allowed that these two different kinds of claims should be provided for in the same bill. I should think that would be wrong, and I should think that a wise provision that should provide against it. Now, it is a distinct thing, and a very differ- ent question, when you come to claims of which there may be numbers, but which all rest upon the same consideration, and which are of the same class and such that you cannot, upon any sound principle, well allow one, unless you de- termine upon the allowance of all standing in like condition — it is a distinct question whether they ought not to be considered together by the Legislature, and whether, indeed, there would not be much less risk of abuse in the exercise of the power of the Legislature if they were al- lowed or required to pass upon all the particu- lar class of claims by a single bill, and make provision for them in some way ; so that when- ever it should be determined that a particular claim comes under the operation of that provi- sion, according to the rule of equity which the State had determined to adopt, the same deter- mination should apply to all of that class. That is a very different question. Now, if some amendment were proposed by which you could impose limits and provide that claims resting upon the same considerations anart of the Con- stitution of the United States. The effect of this proposition is, that the Legislature in ses- sion shall not act, but the question must be postponed until a future Legislature is elected by the people. If we can put a limit upon the power of the State in this matter, by saying that one Legislature shall not act, can we not also limit a second Legislature, or a third, or a fourth, and so on, and say that a hundredth Legislature shall be elected before that can be submitted ; and, in fact, practically nullify this provision of the Constitution of the United States, by saying that the Legislature of the State, to which it is to be submitted, must not act upon it ? As this question has become wor- thy of discussion, it seems to me that point is well taken. If we can limit the power of the Legislature for one year, we may limit it for five years, or ten years, or a hundred years ; so that we may, by constitutional enactment, pro- vide that the State of Ohio shall not accept a constitutional amendment to be offered by Con- gress. In this view of it, and for this purpose alone, as actuated by the force of this argu- ment, I have made this motion to reconsider. I see nothing in this, as has been suggested by some gentleman, that it reflects upon any past Legislature. If I could conceive it to have that effect at all, I would oppose it. We are here framing a Constitution for the future State, and not for the past ; and as this question has arisen, and as it seems to me that it has force and effect, and that it does supplement what Congress has full power over — inasmuch as, if any such legislation is to be enacted upon that subject, it falls to them — it seems to me 1260 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [llltli Hoadly, Gardner, Voris, Baber, Cunningham. [Wednesday, that this question deserves more full considera- tion than was given to it before the recess. Mr. HOADLY. I ask for a call of the House. The Secretary called the roll, and seventy- six members answered to their names, as fol- lows : Messrs. Adair, Albright, Andrews, Baber, Bannon, Blose, Bosworth, Burns, Byal, Clark of Jefferson, Clark of Ross, Clay, Coats, Cook, Cowen, Cunningham, De Steiguer, Doan, Dor- sey, Foran, Gardner, Greene, Griswold, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hitchcock, Hoadly, Hostetter, Humphreville, Johnson, Kerr, Layton, Mc- Bride, McCormick, Merrill, Miller, Miner, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Neal, Okey, Phel- lis, Pond, Powell. Pratt, Reilly, Rickly, Root, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Sam- ple, Scofield, Sears, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Thompson, Townsend, Townsley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Yalken- burgh, Van Yoorhis, Yoorhes, Yoris, Waddle, Watson, West, White of Brown, White of Hocking, Woodbury, Young of Champaign, President — 76. Those not present were — Messrs. Alexander, Barnet, Beer, Bishop, Caldwell, Campbell, Carbery, Chapin, Ewing, Freiberg, Godfrey, Gurley, Horton, Hunt, Jackson, Kreamer, O’Connor, Page, Pease, Philips, Rowland, Scribner, Shaw, Tripp, Weaver, Wells, Wilson, Young of Noble — 28. Mr. GARDNER. I move that further pro- ceedings under the call be dispensed with. Mr. YORIS. It does appear to me, that some indication should be made to certain gen- tlemen on this floor, that their presence is needed here, and that if we continually dis- pense with the call of the House, when the Roll is called, we shall not bring any moral force to bear upon that class of gentlemen. I think that by sending out the Sergeant-at-Arms and bring- ingthem in, would have a greater effect. The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the motion that all further proceedings be dispensed with. Mr. BABER. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were taken, and resulted — yeas 42, nays 32, as follows : Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Adair, Albright, Andrews, Bannon, Bosworth, Clark of Jefferson, Coats, Cowen, De Steiguer, Doan, Dorsey, Gardner, Griswold, Hale, Herron, Hill, Hitchcock, Hoadly, Hostet- ter, Humphreville, McCormick, Merrill, Miller, Miner, Neal, Phellis, Pond, Pratt, Russell of Meigs, Russell of Muskingum, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Smith of Shelby, Townsend, Towns- ley, Yan Yoorhis, Yoorhes, Waddle, Watson, West, Woodbury, President — 42. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Baber, Blose, Burns, Byal, Clark of Ross, Clay, Cook, Cunningham, Foran, Greene, Johnson, Kerr, Layton, McBride, Mitchener, Mueller, Mullen, Powell, Reilly, Rickly, Sam- ple, Scofield, Sears, Thompson, Tulloss, Tuttle, Tyler, Yan Valkenburgh, Yoris, White of Brown, White of Hocking, Young of Cham- paign — 32. So all further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There has been a very grave Constitutional question raised by my friend from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], upon which alone he justifies the motion which he has made for a reconsideration of the vote that was taken before the recess. There may be a doubt; we are bound to believe that a great doubt has arisen in the mind of the distinguish- ed gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] during his dinner hour — a doubt about the pro- priety of his vote. If I understand the point that was made by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], it is that it is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. It is said we are endeavoring to modify that provision of the Constitution that provides that amendments shall receive the indorsement of the Legislature, and that we have no right here to say how, and in what manner, and in what time, a proposed amendment shall be acted upon by the Legis- lature; and he illustrates the idea by saying that, if we may prohibit them from acting one year, we may prohibit them from acting at all. Now, it is not claimed by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], who was the author of this proposition, that in any way it is expected to effect the action of the Federal Government. On the contrary, he concedes that the Secretary of State, when he comes to make up the list of the Legislatures, which have indorsed a prop- osition for amendment, will not go back of the certificate. This provision is alone intended to control our own Legislature. It always has been understood thatthe Legis- lature is not bound to act the first time it shall meet in session after the amendment is proposed. It may act at the next session, or the next, or the next, even to the twentieth session. I believe there is a case within the history of Ohio, wherein the Legislature did consider a proposi- tion of that sort after the lapse of many years. This provision is, therefore, nothing more than a direction of the order of time when the Leg- islature of Ohio shall consider any proposition for amending the Constitution that may be sub- mitted by the Congress of the United States; and, certainly, is no more in contravention of the Constitution — no more an interference with its provisions, where the Legislature of a State is to be consulted — than the one contained in section twenty-nine, which provides that where a Senator of the United States is to be elected the vote shall be taken viva voce . The Constitu- tution of the United States provides that Sena- tors shall be elected by the Legislatures of the States; and we, here, in this Constitution, pro- posed to provide a mode by which the Legisla- ture shall elect a Senator of the United States. I ask my friend from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], wherein he finds the difference, so far as his objection is concerned, between the proposition sought to be recousidered and the provision that directs the mode that Senators of the United States shall be voted for by the General As- sembly ? Mr. GRISWOLD. Would not Congress have full power to direct how Senators should be elected, and if they should act upon it, would not that be controlling? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It would not have been in the old days of the Republic. It might be, under the days of the Empire. But it has gener- ally been understood that the States have the power, and the sole power, of directing how their Day .] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 1261 February 11 , 1874 .] Cunningham, Powell, Hoadly. General Assembly shall act. It is enough for the Federal Government to ask of us to perform these functions, so necessary to secure the full representation in the Congress of the United States, in both branches; but how we shall per- form it, in what manner the Legislature shall make the selection, is for us to determine, and always has been, I believe, throughout the history of this country. If we are 'wrong in this, if we violate an important principle, then we have violated similar principles for the pe- riod of twenty years, and this Convention pro- poses to continue it as long as this Constitution, if adopted, shall exist. Mr. POWELL. I wish to speak only to one question in relation to the matter now before the Convention, and that is the objection which the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] suggested, with regard to the reason why he made this motion for reconsideration, that we have no constitutional right, under the Consti- tution of the United States, to postpone the consideration of the question, when the ques- tion is submitted to the Legislature by the Con- gress of the United States. Now, there has been always a distinction upon this question, dependent upon the reasonableness of it. You may, therefore, delay one year when you could not delay ten years, and the distinction depends upon the reasonableness of the thing. Because you have a right to object to one thing that is reasonable, that is no reason you should have the right to object to that which is much larger, and therefore is unreasonable. You may raise an objection to one when you cannot do it to ten ; and I shall cite a celebrated case that came up long since in the English courts, which has been referred to repeatedly in our courts. A case was brought before Chief Justice Holt to recover the payment of a bill of goods furn- ished to a wife, and it was objected that the de- fendant had forbidden the merchantwho brought the suit from trusting her, and the question was, whether the objection was valid, for if he could object to one he might to ten or all of the merchants in the city? That was answered by Holt in this way : It is reasonable that he should object to this or that particular one, but it would be unreasonable, and a violation of law, were he to be permitted to object to all. It is proper that some should trust the wife under those circumstances ; but it would be reasona- ble that he should object to some particular one who was his enemy, and therefore he had for- bidden him. It is just so here. The same rule applies to this case. It is rea- sonable that we should be able to transfer the adoption of a proposed amendment to the Con- stititution of the United States from the Leg- islature then in session, that never thought that this question would come before them, to be decided, to be transferred to the next Legis- lature, elected with a view to the question. Because we can postpone it to one, it does not prove that we have the power to postpone to ten Legislatures, or indefinitely. We might do it reasonably when we cannot do it unreasonably. It is nothing more than reasonable that we should postpone it from the first Legislature; because that question was not submittted to them ; for they were not elected to decide that question ; and it should be before some Legis- lature who are properly instructed upon the subject. To postpone it, for the purpose of let- ting it come before a Legislature who are elected with a view to that purpose is nothing more than reasonable ; and the argument that, if it be postponed one session, it may be post- poned ten sessions, is a false reason, and con- trary to rule and principle. It is reasonable, when we consider the va- rious provisions made by the Constitution of the United States, to submit questions of this kind to the States, that we should have a fail; expression of the will of the people of the State upon the subject. In most instances, unless it is in this particular way, it is required that there should be a particular Convention of the people to decide upon the question. Therefore, I am most decidedly against reconsidering this question upon the motion of the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold]. The other objections that have been raised here I do not intend to delay the Convention in discussing, because I think those questions have been fully answered. Mr. HOADLY. The Constitution of the United States provides that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. The supreme court of the United States have decided that a stay of execution beyond that permitted by the Legislature of the State at the time of making the contract, is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. I submit that is an answer to all that the delegate from Delaware [Mr. Powell], has said. The post- ponement of that right of execution which ex- isted at the time the contract was made, has been solemnly adjudicated to be a violation of that principle of the Constitution which pro- hibits the impairment of the obligation of con- tracts, and it is, because to add a burden, is to impose a further condition to the obligation of the contract, is to impair the obligation of the contract, just as much as to take it away. Now, the matter to which the delegate from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] refers, is a thing which adds no burden, creates no imposition, but simply directs the form and method of as- certaining the result, and, therefore, is some- thing not apropos to the argument at all. But the Constitution of the United States, which this Convention undertook, this morning, to amend — because that is exactly what we tried to do, that or nothing — says, in Article five, that, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, they shall propose an amend- ment to this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States, shall call a Convention for the purpose of pro- posing amendments, which, in either case, shall have validity, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by three-fourths of the several States. Mr. Presi- dent, it becomes valid when ratified, and I say that the action of this Convention postponing the time of ratification is either null and void, or frivolous, and, therefore, ought to be voted down ; for the reason that, if it be effective at all, it is effective as a violation of the Constitu- tion of the United States, which we have sworn to support. [111th 1262 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Cunningham, Hoadly, Hunt, Layton. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me? Mr. HOADLY. Certainly. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I ask the gentleman to state whether there is any obligation, either directly or indirectly, on the part of any State, to ratify any proposition to amend the Consti- tution, submitted by Congress ? Mr. HOADLY. None whatever. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Then, if there is no obligation, how will it be a violation of good faith for the State to direct the Legislature how and by what means they shall ratify it? Mr. HOADLY. I answer, by asking the gentleman, whether it would be an attempt at a violation of the Constitution of the United States, for this Convention to provide that the Legislature of Ohio shall not have power to ratify any amendment to the Federal Constitu- tion ? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will permit me, I shall answer him now. The an- swer to it is contained in this proposition. There being no obligation to ratify at all, then, as a matter of course, there can be no violation of the Constitution in our dictating terms by which the Legislature shall do it. Mr. HOADLY. I thank the gentleman for his candor. The gentleman is extremely candid. I am sorry that he has no spectacles to enable him to see a little further from his nose. He is as short-sighted as he is honest and candid. The Constitution says that it shall be submitted to the Legislatures of the States ; and he does not see that a provision taking from the Legis- lature the power that the Federal Constitution gives to the Legislature, is a provision in viola- tion of the Constitution, and it is just as much in violation of the Constitution to restrict the Legislature, as it is to deprive the Legislature of power. I wish to say another word before I take my seat. I shall vote to reconsider, for another rea- son. That which makes the gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], and his coadjutors earnest in this matter, induces me to be earnest against it. The occasion which dictated this Proposition No. 191 is an occasion of which I am more proud than any event in the history of the country — the ratification of the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by which Ohio gave her adhesion to the complete enfranchisement of four millions of God’s creatures, as much entitled to that free- dom as I, or any other citizen of the State of Ohio; and I do not sympathize with the spirit which dictated this Proposition No. 191 ; and I am proud of the occasion which has been the subject of animadversion this morning. Mr. HUNT. It was precisely such a proposi- tion as this that caused Ohio to ratify the Fif- teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The first Legislature, after the submission on the part of Congress, declined to ratify it. There was then really an appeal to the people, because, in the very succeeding election for members of the General Assembly, the ques- tion of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amend- ment was one of the issues of the campaign. The people of Ohio, in the election of their Representatives, declared, by a majority vote in the General Assembly, that it should become [Wednesday* a part of the organic law of the land, and the Legislature ratified it. It was a submission to the people, in fact, and secured the very object which this amendment is intended to accom- plish, namely, an expression of the will of the people. I can say to the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], with all frankness, that this proposition was not dictated by any spirit of unfriendliness to the manner of ratification. The Fifteenth Amendment now stands as a part of the law of the land, and it will remain there until our whole system of government is changed. When the right of suffrage is vested in a people it can only be taken away by revo- lution. It was not the Fifteenth Amendment conferring impartial suffrage to which I ob- jected, as a member of the Ohio Senate, but the Fifteenth Amendment depriving the State of determining a question which should belong to the State. I voted as I did because the State should have the right of regulating the question of suffrage within its own limits, and because 1 was not willing to be unfaithful to the constituency which had honored me with a trust. The reso- lution of the State Convention expressly de- clared this to be the ground of objection to the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. The opposition consisted in the fact that it withheld from the respective States the right to determine the privilege of franchise within their own limits. In the earliest formation of the government there was the theory of central- ization against the idea that the general offices of the government should be performed by the States. The War of the Revolution made the colonies States — a common defense made the Articles of Confederation — and the interests and hopes and necessities of a common future made the Federal Constitution. Each State reserved to itself the residuary mass of government. The national question of unity was based upon the internal question of liberty. This was the cardinal idea upon which our system of govern- ment is based, and with it there should go the not less important one, that no man, nor class of men, can assert greater political privileges than can be granted to all, without endangering the welfare of society. Mr. LAYTON. I cannot say that I am par- ticularly wedded to this proposition of the gen- tleman from Hamilton [Mr. HuNTj, but for a very similar reason to the one which the distinguished gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] referred, and the strange and peculiar turn which this matter has taken, under the particular energy of its opponents, it would cause me, too, to vote for it, if I had not origi- nally done so. I very well understood, when the distinguished gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] voted for this proposition, that it was done tor the purpose of making the motion which he has already made to recon- sider. I do not believe that he was honest in voting for it. I know the gentleman’s radical proclivities too well to think, for a moment, that he would vote for a measure of that kind honestly, and without a purpose. That purpose fully developed itself in a few moments after the re-assembling of this Convention. If I did not know the distinguished ability of the gen- 1263 Day.] THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. February 11, 1874. J Layton, Griswold, Young of C. tleman — if I did not know his learning, his good sense, and his unchangeableness, I could be led to believe that from half-past twelve o’clock until half-past two o’clock he had considered the subject fully, and changed his mind. Mr. GRISWOLD. I stated, when I made my motion, and I do now state, that in the general policy of this I believe ; and I would vote for the proposition again if I thought we could lawfully pass it. I think an amendment to the Constitution should be considered by the people, if it is within the power of the law to so limit the power of the Legislature ; and I voted for it, believing in it, without having this question suggested or raised — without consideration on this point, because I believed in this policy. I think it would be a wise policy, because I do not believe that an amendment should be taken up hastily and passed by a State. But it was suggested that there was a difficulty, and, with- out myself having decided upon it, believing that it is a question to be fairly considered, in order that it might be argued, and argued more fully than It was this morning, and that mem- bers might vote intelligently upon the question, and not desiring to do anything that would be in contravention of the Constitution, I made the motion, and the gentleman’s remarks are entirely uncalled for so far as that part of the speech which has reference to myself is concerned. Mr. LAYTON. “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he hath grown so great.” I made it out of no ill spirit, but made it believing, as I still believe, that there was an object in his vote for that measure; and I would ask the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] what new light has been thrown upon this question, in the last two hours, that has caused him to make such a summersault ? This propo- sition has been submitted for weeks ; has been printed for months; and the gentleman has had, if not in this Convention, at least during his absence, time enough to have fully talked over the question, and have fully considered all that was in it. I cannot think for a moment that it can have a retroactive effect. I was opposed to the spirit of the Fifteenth Amendment, and if it could be affected now, I say, for one, I would not vote to affect it; but, believing that I have that much knowledge of law, that anything we might pass that would tend toward that matter could have no retroactive effect. I cannot see why the gentlemen are so particularly zealous in moving this reconsideration. I trust that this practice of passing upon a measure by a majority one day, and the next day moving to reconsider, and opening up the whole subject, and wasting the people’s money, will be put a stop to. It has been the habit, on many occasions, to vote with the successful party for the purpose of moving a reconsideration. I think that the strictures that have been passed upon us are beginning to be realized : that we are here idling away our time, by voting upon a question and then moving a reconsideration, and thus open- ing up the debate upon questions which have been presented to us for months. I trust this motion will be voted down, and henceforth we shall have no more of this child’s play, by moving to reconsider. Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. I am satisfied that no gentleman who voted for this amend- ment had in his mind anything that has occur- red with regard to the fifteenth amendment. I think we all regard that as a part of the Consti- tution. Certainly, I was glad it was carried, and very much gratified that that subject was ended, and the colored people were given the right to vote. I think no one who has discussed this question has discussed it with reference to any feeling connected with the passing of that provision. If this amendment contem- plated any contravention of that provision of the Constitution, contemplating the ratification by the Legislature, it might be objectionable. But it does not. It is a misapprehension of it to say that this amendment means to interfere at all with the ratification by the Legislature of this State, of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It does not. In its terms, rather, it recognizes this provision of the Con- stitution of the United States, providing for the ratification by the Legislatures of amendments made to that Constitution. It contemplates that in its terms : “The General Assembly shall not ratify any amendment of the Constitution of the United States until a general election for members of the General Assembly shall have been held.” It was simply postponing. It is a recognition of that provision of the Constitu- tion which contemplates that an amendment shall be ratified by a certain number of States. It is a recognition of that provision, but simply provides that the Legislature may not proceed to do it until there shall be an election, and not that the General Assembly may defer action upon that subject from time to time. Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman allow me a question ? Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. O, yes. Mr. GRISWOLD. If we have the power to say that the Legislature, in session, shall not act upon it, but shall postpone it to the General Assembly to be hereafter elected, may we not postpone it to a second General Assembly ? Is there any distinction between the power we have to say that it shall be postponed to one future General Assembly, and the power to say that it may be postponed to a second General Assembly ? Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. I think that does not follow. This is not a proposition to postpone for a certain number of years; but it is a proposition to postpone until the people of the State shall have acted. There is in this pro- vision of the Constitution of the United States, the alternative that ratification may be made by the Legislatures of the States, or by a Conven- tion of the people. The principle of this ratifi- cation by the Legislature is, certainly, but an expression of the people. It is another mode of accomplishing that thing, either by a conven- tion of the people, through delegates, at once, or by the Representatives in the Legislature, and, in the spirit of it, contemplates the ex- pression of the will of the people. If this provi- sion of the Constitution of the United States contemplated that there should be immediate action by the Legislature, or contemplated that 1264 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. [111th Young of C., West, Hoadly, Layton, Cunningham. [Wednesday? this should he done at once, there would he force in the suggestion that this is an inter- ference with the Constitution of the United States. But that provision of the Constitution of the United States, contemplating these amendments, and the submission thereof to the Legislature, does not contemplate immediate action; for, so far as this language is con- cerned, the Legislature of this year may act upon it, or the Legislature of another year. As my friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt] has said, when this Fifteenth Amendment was pre- sented in our Legislature, in May, 1869, it was rejected ; and it was understood in Ohio, by those who composed the Legislature, and by the people, that that was not the end of that question. It was submitted to the people, and in the winter of 1870, after the question had been met, the proposition was again brought before the Legislature, and carried ; and at that session the Fifteenth Amendment was sus- tained. It was not contemplated then by the Constitution of the United States, and is not now understood, that the action of the Legisla- ture was to follow immediately upon the propo- sition being presented. It may not be the first year; it may not be the second, or the fourth, or the fifth. It is not, necessarily, to be imme- diate. Hence, a provision in the Constitution of Ohio, that the Legislature shall not ratify until after an election, is not in contravention of this provision of the Constitution of the United States, unless the provision of the Constitution requires immediate action — and it does not. Mr. WEST. Suppose, after adopting this proposition, that the General Assembly in ex- istence at the time of the submission of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, should act upon it, and ratify it, not- withstanding this clause in the Constitution. Would the Government of the United States be bound to reject the ratification, or accept it? Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. In the first place, I do not apprehend Mr. WEST. That will not do. Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. It may not suit your purpose; but if the distinguished gentleman from Logan [Mr. West] will allow me, I shall answer it in the way that suits me. The gentleman says, that will not do. I think it will do. 1 do not apprehend that the Legis- lature of Ohio would disregard a plain provi- sion of the Constitution of the State, and, there- fore, the suggestion is not a practical one, nor a thing likely to occur at all. Mr. HOADLY. Will the delegate permit me to ask if it is not likely to occur, what is the use of adopting an amendment to prevent its occurrence ? Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. If this view, that it will be disregarded, is correct, as the gentleman thought, it would not be necessary to adopt it. Mr. HOADLY. What is the object of this amendment, except to prevent its occurrence? If it is not likely to occur, why is not the amendment frivolous? Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. It will do no harm. Mr. LAYTON. I would like to know why the gentleman did not vote the other day to al- I low persons in the southern part of the State to represent the northern part? Mr. HOADLY. I would be glad to have that occur, if they could get better men. Mr. YOUNG, of Champaign. If the gentle- men can settle that matter between them, I shall be entirely content. I was only going to add a word or two more, and I confess I had no thought of saying what I have said on this prop- osition. My indisposition to discuss any sub- ject that is before the Convention, would have precluded me from saying as much as I have. 1 would much rather we would get through with our labors. I was only going to remark that I hoped that this amendment may be a part of the Constitution of our State. I regard it as very important, without regard to what may be the complexion of politics in the future. If the Democrats in the future shall be fortunate enough to succeed in Ohio, and the power and the offices shall be in their hands, perhaps it may change the feeling of some. I had no con- sideration of politics in this question at all, and I hope that no man considers it in proposingan amendment to the Constitution, whether he be a Democrat or a Republican. Mr. HOADLY. I would like to have permis- sion to say one word. I think it but due from myself to my colleague [Mr. Hunt] that I should entirely exculpate him from any imputation which might be derived from anything I have said, as suggesting that his course in this matter is founded upon political considerations grow- ing out of the adoption, by Ohio, of the Fifteenth Amendment, and so I may say to the delegate from Champaign [Mr. Young], But I do not, and cannot, forget that the one reason given, this morning, for the adoption of this amend- ment was a charge made by the delegate from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], that the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted by fraud, and he claimed that the existence of just such a provi- sion as this would have prevented its adoption, and referred, as an instance in point, to the election in Michigan, in which the people, by forty thousand majority, had rejected a like pro- vision in the State Constitution, and elected a Legislature, at the same time, which adopted the Fifteenth Amendment when presented by Congress, without waiting for the election of a Legislature after its submission. In view of that argument, I think I am justified in the claim I made, that the feeling which dictated, not on the part of my colleague, but certainly on the part of one or more of the advocates of this proposition, was a feeling of disappoint- ment and anger, growing out of the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Most of that which the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] has just said, as to the character of my remarks, this morning, is correct. Not quite, perhaps, to the extent, however, that he has stated the case ; but I do say, and I say it to the gentle- man from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], that I think it is a statement which is borne out by history, that the fifteenth amendment was carried through Congress, and through the Legislatures of the several States, in direct violation of the pledges made in the National Convention, and in the teeth of the action of the people of the States when they were electing those Legisla- Day.] RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 1265 February 11 , 1874 .] Cunningham, Hoadly, Sample, Root, Baber. tures. Is not that a fact? I ask the gentleman. I do not find it necessary to call it a fraud, but anything that works a fraud is a fraud, and I challenge the gentleman to deny the state- ment. Mr. HOADLY. I did not hear the state- ment. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The statement is, that the fifteenth amendment was passed in viola- tion of the public pledge of your party in Na- tional Convention, and indorsed by the Legis- latures, in express violation of the wishes of all the people of the several States. Mr. HOADLY. The gentleman talks about my party. I belong to no party. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You did. Mr. HOADLY. 1 have been a Republican, and would be again — Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is not answering my question. Was it not done in violation of the pledge of the Republican party ? Mr. HOADLY. No, sir! I deny the state- ment from beginning to end, and challenge its proof. It was the noblest measure that ever was adopted in the United States, and its record is stained by no fraud whatever. If that is not broad enough, I shall make it broader. [Ap- plause.] Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Since the gentleman helped to write the Greeley platform here, he has forgotten what was written at Chicago, years before that. Mr. HOADLY. But I have not forgotten that the platform written here indorsed the fifteenth amendment. [Applause.] Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Then it is a pity that the gentleman did not back up that platform by his vote. [Applause.] Now, Mr. President, the gentleman has seen fit — The PRESIDENT. The Chair would state that the debate is getting a little wild. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But it is all very good natured. The gentleman has chosen to ques- tion the extent of the vision of the gentleman from Allen, and he feels guilty of the charge, for he does not claim to have the capacity to see plumb through a gravel bank, and I doubt whether anybody in this Convention, other than the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoad- ly], would have thought of bringing in, as a reinforcement to his side of the case, that pro- vision of the Constitution that provides that no ]aw shall be passed by a State impairing the obligation of contracts. I imagine now that my friend would apply to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the United States for a writ of mandamus against the Legislature of Ohio to compel it to carry out a contract. A contract for what? It has always been said that it takes two parties to make a contract, and I sought, in my weak way, to state a proposi- tion that I thought carried the whole legal re- sult of that, that there being no obligation at all on the part of the State to act in the matter, therefore, the manner in which the State con- cludes to act belongs strictly to itself, and no- body else, and I say that the gentleman himself will admit that that is the logic of the case, and it cannot be anything else. Now, Mr. President, as to this Fifteenth Amendment. I am glad to know that my friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], has not only ac- V. 11-82 quiesced in the Fifteenth Amendment, but has made good time and open confession that it ac- corded precisely with his sentiments at the time. 1 am frank enough to admit, that at the time the Fifteenth Amendment was passed, it did notaccord with my sentiments, and while I do not, in my weak way, propose to question it now, neither the principle nor the manner in which that amendment was adopted ever re- ceived my assent. The time may elapse when it will be vindicated. I am sure, I hope its wis- dom will be vindicated; but the time has not come yet. And whether it is right or wrong that the colored man in this country should have been clothed with the ballot at that time — just at a moment when he was emerging from ser- vitude — I have yet to give my consent to that old false proposition of law and of fact: that the end justifies the means. Mr. President, it was the boldest, the baldest, the most palpable assertion on the part of the Federal Govern- ment that our people no longer govern; but that they, like the subjects of an empire, or kingdom, are governed by men who know bet- ter what is good for them than they do for themselves. And so, the Republican party, at Chicago, when it placed General Grant first in nomination, distinctly pledged to the people that the status of the ballot, in the several States, should be left to the people of the States. And upon that, when it w r as charged by the oppon- ents of General Grant, at his first election, that the intention was to accomplish this by in- direction, it was denied, and the history of the battles in Ohio, and other States, were pointed to. But no sooner had that Congress, that had been elected almost two years before, gone back to Washington, than — before the smoke of the battle had lifted — a joint resolution was intro- duced into Congress, passed hastily through, and sent abroad through the States, under the dictation of the regency at Washington that controlled at that time, and perhaps controls yet. The people were not consulted. I say it here, and I charge it to be tru«, that whatever may have been the result, whether good or evil, the people of the Northern States, who alone have any control of this matter, were not consulted when this fifteenth amendment was engrafted upon the Constitution. Mr. SAMPLE. I call the gentleman to or- der. He is wandering from the case under consideration, and consuming time. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I was making a mighty good speech, anyhow. Mr. ROOT. I hope the gentleman will be allowed to proceed with his discourse. It has provoked a good deal of commentary, and I hope it will be finished, because he has stated here what he honestly believes, doubtless, but which is as far from the truth as heaven is from hell. Mr. BABER. I do not want to have this political discussion on the Fifteenth Amend- ment on this floor, and I rise, if possible, for the purpose of composing the differences be- tween these mighty champions of the two great parties — the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], who runs the independent machine, and my friend of the People’s Party, the gentle- man from Allen 1266 RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. [111th Baber, Humphreville, Herron, Burns, Griswold. [Wednesday, Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What machine do you run ? Mr. BABER. With reference to the Fif- teenth Amendment, I think the suggestk n of the gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample] was wise — that it really has nothing to do with this question. When the proposition was brought forward, by a majority of the Legisla- tive Committee, on which I recognized the names of some well-known Republican gentle- men upon this floor Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Which one? Mr. BABER. Colonel Doan, of Clinton, a Quaker of the Quakers, who laid his coat off and went to the war — a gallant soldier. I do not think there is any doubt of his Republicanism or loyalty. When that was brought forward. I did not take any part in this question. Mr. HERRON. I rise to a point of order. Is a question of order debatable? The PRESIDENT. There is no question of order before the Convention. The gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] yielded the floor. Mr. BURNS. Only for the decision of the Chair. The PRESIDENT. The Chair was of the opinion that the debate was taking a wide lati- tude, and so stated to the Convention at the time. A point of order was made by the gen- tleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample]. The gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham] yield- ed the floor. Mr. BABER. I claim the floor. What point of order does the gentleman raise on me ? Mr. BURNS. I do not raise any point on you at all. Mr. BABER. On the question of reconsider- ation made by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], as I said, I did not intend to have uttered a word ; but I find that if the gen- tleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] had given his evidence in full — and I take what he has said in this matter to be true — that his original impulse was, that the propositionwa s in the right direction, and that there was no legal or constitutional objection to putting such a provision as this in the Constitution. But, upon considering the matter, he came to doubt whether we had any legal or constitutional right to adopt it. I confess myself that I con- sider that a question worth looking at; but it seems to me, that when the vote was taken upon this floor — and I notice the vote was with- out reference to party divisions or party ante- cedents, some whose standing in the Republican ranks is doubted by no one, sustained it — I sat- isfied myself on the legal question, if I had any doubt in the matter, that I was safe in follow- ing the lead upon the vote given in its favor by the able and venerable Chairman of the Com- mittee on Judicial Department [Mr. Andrews], who recorded his vote in the affirmative upon this question. If I had any doubt upon this le- gal point I would have been guided very much by the action of the head of that Committee, which I have sustained generally through thick and thin upon this floor ; and if I have made any mistake with regard to the law, I think I am in very good company. I think there has been too much feeling ex- hibited in this matter upon this floor. 1 hope we are not going to spend the afternoon in talk- ing about the Fifteenth Amendment. My friend, the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Root], and myself were in the Legislature at the time that matter was fought out. That fight is over and I do not propose to renew it here. Per- haps, some gentlemen who were not there, like my friend from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], and my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Allen [Mr. Cunningham], may be dis- posed to re-open the question. These Represen- tative “ Independents ” have exhibited more party heat, and talked more politics in this Convention than has ever before been heard in this body, and as one of the Begulars , whom they are accustomed to exhort to moderation, I protest against their course as calculated to pre- judice the case. T simply propose to vote upon this question as standing upon its own merits; and after due reflection, and due consideration, I believe that the natural impulse, which seem- ed to strike the members in the Convention, that this was a wise and fair provision, and that it ought to be put into the Constitution of Ohio, was the right one ; and I do not think that gen- tlemen who have raised legal objections to the question have made points that are valid ; be- cause there is nothing in the question, that if we prohibit the first Legislature from acting upon it they may be prohibited from acting upon it altogether. I agree with the remarks made by the gentle- man from Hamilton [Mr. Hunt], that this is merely directory to the Legislature. I admit that the government of the United States upon the ratification of an amendment by a Legisla- ture has it in its province to pass upon the mat- ter, but I desire that there be some barrier placed as a safe-guard against this kind and class of ratification in the future. In the future the government of the United States may be controlled by a violent party majority, and they may propose an amendment establishing a king or establishing an empire. They might have the Legislatures of the States filled with their crea- tures. These Legislatures may adopt the amendment without submitting the question to the people by delaying action for the election of new Legislatures, and the ratification of the amendment be thus fraudulently imposed on the country, and our only remedy would be revo- lution. Therefore, I think it is wise and proper that this barrier should be thrown up; and I hope that the gentlemen who have voted this morning for this proposition will vote for it again. I see no reason in this attempt to get up a reconsideration and a party excitement. Mr. GRISWOLD. 1 think that the sugges- tion that was made, as to this Constitutional question, has been fairly presented. No one has as yet answered the argument at all, that if we can limit this power to any particular Leg- islature, we may not limit it to any number. For no one has shown that, if we have the I question submitted by Congress to the General Assembly of the State, if we can say that it must be submitted to a particular Assembly, or have the power to name any particular time we may limit it to the General Assembly that will sit a hundred years hence, and, therefore, we can say, by a constitutional provision, that the I State shall never act upon the proposition sub- Day.] RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 1267 February 11, 1874.] Voris, Sample, Tuttle. mitted. That argument, it seems to me, has not been answered by anybody, and, as it follows incontestibly that this is in contravention with the Constitution. Mr. YORIS. It strikes me as if the discus- sion had degenerated into anything else than what it ought to be upon this question. I think the Convention is prepared to take a vote, and, therefore, I move the previous question. Mr. SAMPLE. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion. Mr. YORIS. With the consent of the Con- vention, I withdraw it, if the gentleman desires to be heard. I know he will confine himself to the question. Mr. SAMPLE. I desire, as much as possible, to avoid obtruding myself upon this Conven- tion, especially when I suppose they do not de- sire to have their time occupied by anything I may say. I have no interest, I have no feeling, in this matter. I scarcely have any anxiety about it at all ; and I say, now, before this Con- vention, that if either party in this contest had conducted the debate with any reasonable pro- priety, I would have felt inclined to support that side; but neither one has, and, therefore, I shall act according to my ow n view of the mer- its of the case. I have no feeling on the subject, for it is not likely a case will occur, during my life, that will make it necessary for this power to be ex- ercised by the Legislature. But it has been brought forward here, and this motion has been advocated upon grounds which I do not feel at liberty to permit to go unanswered. It has been said by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly] that, “after having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, we this morning, undertook to amend it.” Mr. President, I claim to understand the na- ture of the oath I have taken. I claim to be responsible for my acts, and I unqualifiedly deny the imputation of the gentleman. I ad- mit that I took an oath to support the Constitu- tion of the United States; but that I undertook to amend it, I unequivocally deny. I have favored this proposition without any reference to any other question than the merits of the case, and I have not the least hesitancy in renewing that vote whenever an opportuni- ty is presented; and if there be no stronger arguments than those that have been presented, in favor of the unconstitutionality of this ques- tion, I have no hesitation in the future, time after time, and day after day, whenever occasion may occur, to vote for the very same proposi- tion. What are the duties of the Federal Govern- ment in reference to the amendments of the Constitution? They are to pass a resolution. Congress passes a resolution, and whether it is approved by the President or not, I believe is not very well ascertained ; but they pass a res- olution. Then, what further obligation does the Constitution of the United States impose upon the Government of the United States in reference to this matter? They adopt an amendment. They send it out to the States. Then the functions of Congress are exhausted ; their powers are at an end, and they have no more control over the action of the State of Ohio than they have over the government of Mexico. They have no more right to enforce an obligation upon the Legislature of the State of Ohio than they have to enforce a regulation, or an obligation of any kind, upon the people re- siding in theSandwich Islands. What is the lan- guage of the Constitution ? It is, that Congress shall adopt this amendment. It does not even provide that it shall be forwarded to the State. There is no provision on the subject looking to the exercise of any control over the State, or anything looking in that direction ; but it says that, when ratified by the Legislatures of three- fourths of the States, it shall be valid. Now, that is what the Legislatures have to do. They are not under any obligation from Congress. It is a matter of domestic regulation. It is a matter resting in the discretion of the State, and the Legislature may ratify, or it may refuse to ratify such amendment, no obligation being imposed by the Constitution of the United States. What is the provision which is proposed to be adopted ? It is a provision regulating the action of the State in such ratification. The gentle- man from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] says the State has no power to provide for the proper performance of its duties in ratifying such an amendment. Is it possible that without any direct provision of the Constitution denying such power, when that instrument itself de- clares that everything that is not interdicted to the State, or that is not in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people, that such power does not exist? When Con- gress adopted a resolution proposing for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is it not the duty of the State, in the ex- ercise of due deliberation, in order to have the voice of the people represented — to have a knowledge and understanding of the wishes of the whole people, in reference to that amend- ment — to submit it fairly and independently to the people ? Mr. TUTTLE. I do not know that I fully understand what the gentleman from Coshoc- ton [Mr. Sample] means to claim : whether it be, that it is improper to make these regulations, or whether he means that if the State makes them, any ratification by the Legislature, before the time provided for in the State Constitution, would be valid. What I desire to understand is, does the gentleman claim that, if this consti- tutional provision should go into effect and then an amendment is proposed, and it should never- theless be acted upon by the Legislature, that that ratification would be invalid ? Mr. SAMPLE. Does this come out of my ten minutes? It is most too much time to be taken out of the barley-corn of time allowed under Rule 69. The gentleman asks the ques- tion : Suppose this clause be put in the Consti- tution-repeating the question put by the gen- tleman from Logan [Mr. West], and suppose the Legislature, elected under the Constitution with this clause, should proceed to do what they had sworn when they went into office they would not do — that is the case stated by both of these gentlemen — would their action be valid ? In the first place, in answering that, it is not to be assumed that the Legislature of the State of Ohio would violate the Constitution of the State 1268 RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. [llltfa Sample, Griswold, Powell, Wilson, West. [Wednesday, of Ohio. That is an assumption that is not to be tolerated, and which requires no other answer than to say that it would be a part of the obligation of the Legislature to refrain from any such action ; and as to the other de- partment, or branch of the inquiry, I suppose it would depend, when the amendments, with the State’s action, went to Washington, whether that action was in harmony with the views of the government, or whether it was not. If it was, it would be ratified; if not, it would not. j That is what I suppose. Such are my views upon the subject, that this is a mere regulation ot the manner in which this right is to be exer- cised. The gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold] says his objection of want of power has not been answered : that if the State can extend the time of ratification for one day, for one session, that it can extend it ad infinitum — for a hundred years. It cannot be answered. It needs no answer; because the gentleman knows as well as I do that the right can be ex- ercised reasonably and properly ; but it is not necessarily implied that it shall be exercised unreasonably and improperly. The gentleman knows very well that it is a principle of law, wherever a duty is imposed all the means and all the rights that are necessary to discharge that duty are necessarily employed. The gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Gris- j wold] says, that it would be well for the peo- ple of the State to have an opportunity of investigating a constitutional amendment before they are called upon to adopt that Con- stitutional amendment. Now, I say that, if this is done, upon every principle upon which con- tracts are made, upon every principle upon which judicial decisions are framed, in the reg- ulations of the rights of individuals in deter- mining their relations to each other, that, nec- essarily, time should be allowed for prepara- tion. [Here the hammer fell.] Leave was granted to Mr. Sample to proceed. Mr. SAMPLE. There is another point to which I wish to call attention. It was said by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Hoadly], that another ground why he favored this mo- tion was, that certain gentlemen named, and their coadjutors, by which I understand him to mean all the members who have voted in favor of this proposition, were stimulated to it by the consideration of extrinsic circumstances apart from the merits of the proposition itself. 1 do not know upon what authority the gentleman undertook to say to this Convention that I had supported it from any other motive than a proper motive in giving my vote in its favor. The only consideration which could influence me, and the only consideration which did influ- ence me in voting in favor of it, was because I thought it was proper. The gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], himself admits that it is a proper provision to he incorporated into the Constitution, and one which it would be well enough to incorporate, so that I repel any imputation that 1 had any other motive to adopt the proposition than which I believe would be proper and right to be incorporated into the Constitution. That is all I wishtosay. Mr. GRISWOLD. Before the gentleman takes his seat I wish to ask him a question. The gentleman saj^s that it is a question of regula- tion. Is it not, after all, a question of power? Have we any power to regulate it at all? Do you not assume the whole point in dispute* when you say that we can regulate it at a rea- sonable manner as to time? Then it comes to the question what is a reasonable time ? If we can say we have the power to regulate that, and can put it off to the next General Assembly ; if we decide that it is to be ten years, who can say j that it is not a reasonable regulation ? Mr. POWELL. The whole world. Mr. GRISWOLD. The difficulty in the mat- ter is, that we have no power to regulate it at all. The Constitution provides that it shall be submitted to the Legislature of the State. Now, if it is submitted to any Legislature of the State there is no power to regulate it whatever. The Legislature may act upon it. They may refuse to ratify; but Congress has the power to- submit it to the General Assembly of the State. If they submit it to the General Assembly in session, that General Assembly has the power to act upon it; and my view of it, upon consid- eration is, that we have no power to regulate it at all. If we decide that the State has the right to act upon it, and say that they shall take ten years or one year in which to act, I would like the gentleman to answer whether it is not i a question of regulation or a question of power ? Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask the gen- tleman why he did not think of this before ? Mr. GRISWOLD. I do not think of every- thing. Mr. WEST. Mr. President The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Coshocton [Mr. Sample], has not yielded the floor. Mr. SAMPLE. I do not know that the gen- tleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Griswold], is through with his question or not. Mr. GRISWOLD. Was it not assuming the whole argument when the gentleman said it is an assumption that we have any power to make it? Mr. SAMPLE. No, sir ; I thought we had all the power necessary to discharge that duty, and if this was necessary in order to a proper dis- charge of that duty, that we, unquestionably, have the right to exercise that power. That is a proper exercise of power we have, unques- tionably. We have, unquestionably, the right to the proper exercise of that power. Mr. WEST. There is in our present Consti- tution a provision declaring that no person holding a judicial office in the State of Ohio shall stand or be voted for as a candidate for any federal office, and that all votes cast for such judicial officer, as such candidate for Con- gress, or otherwise, shall be void. There is a positive declaration, a positive prohibition, and a declaration that the act exercised shall be void and of no effect whatever. Yet, in the face of that declaration, Lawrence W. Hall, of Seneca county, and William Lawrence, of Guernsey county, while members of the General Assem- bly of Ohio, and Hall, while a judge of a court in Ohio, and Ben. Eggleston, were voted for as members of Congress. The question came before Congress whether the people of the State had the power to regulate the casting of Day.] RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 1269 February 11 , 1874 .] West, Cunningham, Sears. votes for the Congressional candidates, or in other words, to declare what should be, or what should not be, the qualifications of members of Congress, for whom the people might vote, and it was held, unanimously, in all cases of that kind, that the Government of the United States could determine all questions concerning the powers of that Government respecting its offi- cers, and the qualifications of the officers under it. That being so, that clause in our Constitu- tion is perfectly nugatory, so far as it affects the voting for Federal officers. I am not looking at the Fifteenth, Fourteenth, or Tenth Amendments ; for I care nothing about them. The Fifteenth Amendment was adopted in Ohio, after a vote of the people, by a Legis- lature subsequently elected, and hence no part of this question can apply to Ohio, and I shall not trouble myself about that question. I do not care how that is. It is the single question, now, of the propriety of incorporating into the Constitution of the State of Ohio a provision that must, in the very nature of the case, be utterly and absolutely nugatory, and binds nobody. Now, I am not in favor of incorporating such a provi- sion in the Constitution, and I now and here say, that the member from Coshocton [Mr. Sample] Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me one question, right here ? Mr. WEST. Eight there? Yes, sir. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Without this proposi- tion incorporated into the Constitution, requir- ing that an election should be held first, would it be obligatory upon a member of the Legisla- ture who had sworn to support the Consti- tution ? Mr. WEST. No, sir. That is the very thing which I say is not obligatory upon the members of the General Assembly. Not a bit of it. That is the very trouble. If we could make such a provision, or proposition, as that, binding upon anybody, I should have no objection ; not only have no objection, but I would favor it. 1 and I am so firmly and thoroughly convinced that no act of this Convention, or the action of the people of the State of Ohio, can interfere with the constitutional power vested in the General Assembly of Ohio, by the Constitution of the United States, that any act that we do here must be utterly nugatory, and void in that particular. Why ? The Constitution of the United States has vested in certain tribunals the power of amending that Constitution. There is the question. It has designated certain tribunals, throughout these United States, in which the power of amendment is vested. Now, having vested that power in these tribu- nals, there is no other power upon earth, among men, by which those tribunals can be divested of that authority and right. Suppose, after this proposition will have been adopted, the Congress of the United States will submit an amendment to the Constitution pro- hibiting the incorporation into the general appropriation bill of these plundering, swind- ling propositions by which the people are robbed of so many millions, and asks that there be a constitutional amendment prohibiting that thing, and it is submitted to the General As- sembly of Ohio, just elected, before the adoption of the resolution by Congress, and suppose that General Assembly assumes to exercise the authority vested in it by the Constitution of the United States. May it not do so? If it does so, will not the act be a recognition by the Government of the United States as a valid constitutional act by that General Assembly? It will. Then, if it be a valid act, under the Constitution of the United States, what effect can be given to the prohibitory clause in the Constitution declaring that it shall not be ex- ercised — for, if there is any weight — if it can have any effect upon this proposition, the Gen- eral Assembly must be denied the power to act in the premises. If they are not denied the power to act, the clause is nugatory and useless. If they are denied the power to act, then the government of the United States could not expect action to be felt or prohibited or denied by the State. The result simply is, that it produces a collision and a conflict. If the Gen- eral Assembly, in apparent contravention of this provision, should go on and exercise the power vested in them by the Constitution of the United States, they would appear to be violating their oath to support the Constitution of the State, while they were vindicating their oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I do not want to put any member of the General Assembly in that exceedingly awkward position, wherein, while exercising the power given him by the Government of the United States, acting as a tribunal of amend- ment, he will appear to be violating the oath taken to support the Constitution of his State, and yet, the oath to support the Constitution cannot render his act nugatory, when exercised under the Constitution of the United States. It is not right to put the General Assembly in that category, and to place it in that posi- tion. Let us abstain from putting in the Constitu- tion anything that would seem to come in conflict with that power over which we have no control. I think that we ought to take out of the Constitution that prohibition that the people shall not vote for a j udicial officer for a candidate for Federal office, because it is utterly in conflict with the power of Congress. I say it is unnecessary, entirely, and the people do not appear to violate their oath to support the Con- stitution of the State, when, under a provision of that clause, they vote for a man of that character for a Federal office, because they have not, in fact, taken an oath to support the Con- stitution of the State. But a member of the General Assembly is in a different position. He swears to support both the power of the General Government, and the constitutional power of his own State, and here is his oath staring him in the face. If he goes forward and discharges his duty, as a part of the tribunal of amendment, he trifles with the Constitution of his State. If he observes the injunction of the Constitution of his State, he has neglected the discharge of his duty that the Constitution of the United States imposes upon him. Mr. SEARS. I would like to ask the gentle- man a question. Mr. WEST. Certainly. Mr. SEARS. If I understand the Constitu- tion of the United States, does it not give Congress the power to prescribe the mode or 1270 RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. [111th West, Sears, Tuttle. [Wednesday, the time when the State Legislature should act on the proposed amendment? Mr. WEST. No, sir. Mr. SEAES. Then does not that power ne- cessarily belong to the State ? Mr. WEST. No, sir ; it is an independent tribunal. The Constitution of the United States has designated Mr. SEAES. It is regulated by the Constitu- tion wherever the powers of Congress do not conflict. Mr. WEST. Now, the Government of the United States vests in the probate and common pleas and district court judges, and the several judges, the power to naturalize foreigners. It is a power vested in those officers by designa- tion. Is there any power in the Constitution of Ohio that can deprive those officers of the au- thority to naturalize foreigners ? Mr. SEAES. We can abolish the offices. Mr. WEST. You can abolish the Legisla- ture. Mr. SEAES. We can make it meet once in twenty years. Mr. WEST. Or once in a thousand years, or as often as you please ; but when your Legisla- ture is in existence, it is just like your court, when it is in existence — the power vested in it by the Federal Government may be exercised by it, anything in your State Constitution or laws to the contrary, noth withstanding. [Here the hammer fell, but by common con- sent, Mr. West was permitted to proceed.] Mr. WEST. And when your Legislature is in existence, and a proposition for amendment is submitted to it, it can exercise the power of amendment, anything in the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstand- ing. Mr. TUTTLE. In the Fifth Article of the Constitution of the United States it is provided that Congress, “whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on applica- tion of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the sev- eral States shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, or by Conven- tions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.’’ The next Article provides this: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treat- ies made, or which shall be made, under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, aud the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any- thing in the Constitution and the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Now, Mr. President, on the first day of Feb- ruary, 1865, the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, sub- mitted to the States to be acted upon, what is now known as the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. At that time the Legislature of the State of Ohio was in session, and on the 10th day of February, 1865, they acted upon this amendment, and ratified it. Of course, the question under discussion has no particular application to that; because, at that time, there was no such provision in the Constitution as we are proposing to add to it; but it may be used by way of illustration, and it may be supposed that at that time there had been a provision in the Constitution of the State of Ohio similar to that one which it is now proposed to insert. In the first place, we may remember that here is a provision of the Constitution that was made be- fore Ohio was a State ; but if it had not been it would not have made any difference, for it acted upon a new State the same as upon any other. That provision of the Constitution pro- vided that Congress might have the power to propose an amendment to the Constitution by submitting it to the Legislature of the State. Then it provided that a Legislature of the State should have power to act upon and ratify that amendment to the Constitution. I take it, whatever might be said to the contrary, that that was a law of the United States, made pur- suant to the Constitution of the United States, and declared by it to be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. And I take it, Mr. President, as a point too plain to be argued, and a point which no gen- tleman has attempted to dispute, upon this floor, that it gave to any Legislature that was then in session within the limits of this broad domain, the power to act upon and ratify or reject that constitutional amendment as they saw fit; or if they saw fit to postpone the action upon it un- til some future day, or until they chose to take action upon it. The Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land, says they may do so, and if they do it, that it shall make an additional Article, an additional power on the one hand, or an additional restric- tion upon power on the other, whenever a suf- ficient number of Legislatures should concur in ratification. Let us suppose, on the other hand, that this provision were inserted in the Constitution of Ohio. What does that say ? The General As- sembly shall not ratify any amendment to the Constitution of the United States until a general election for members of the General Assembly shall have been held, after such an amendment shall have been proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the respective States. If it had been in the Constitution at that time, it would have said to the Legislature of the State of Ohio, to all intents and purposes : That, while Congress, pursuant to the Constitution, has authorized you to pass upon this amendment, to the effect that when not less than three-fourths of the States have concurred, it shall be ratified. The Constitution of the State of Ohio would have said you may not act upon this provision of the Constitution, you may not ratify it at all, but your term of office must expire, the sun of the day of your existence must go down upon you, and another Legislature must be elected, and another Legislature alone shall have the power to act upon this provision. I desire to know how any gentleman, looking at it in that light, can say that here is not a