Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 March 1887 — As to Blame. [ARTICLE]

As to Blame.

It is an absurdity to talk about the republicans of the house being in any way responaible for the present dead-lock in legislation, or being in any way able by their own action to it; and it would be equally as absurd to indulge in legislation simply to have the c >urts declare it invalid. The sole obstruction to legislation is in the illegal and revolutionary conduct of the senate.—Richmond Palladium. To which another Republic in paper, the Indianapolis News, responds thusly:

Have the republicans ever “recognized'’Green Smith’s right?No. But they did recognize his presence de lacto; they accepted accomplished facts and legislated with him in the chair, passing the bill for their pay and other legislative expenses and so on, until the decision of the supreme court. — Now that decision altered no status Quo. it is sud, “we decide nothing; we have no jurisdiction.’ So Robertson stands just where he did and the repu’ licans stand just as they oid when they were recognizing Smith defiictoand egislating with them. They protested then just as much against his de jure righc as they protest now, but they went along passing laws widi his help simply as an accomplished fact. AA hy can’t they continue this? They would no more vitiate Robertson’s position or their claim by doing it than they have vitiated it by doing it. Thus, for their present position, they haven’t “a leg to stand on.” They are not responsible for the illegal action of the democratic senate, and legislating with it doesn’t mak » them responsible. If it does, the “ e at is in the fire” already, for they have legislated with it, and they can t make matters worse by continuing to do so. They can make | them, and are making th°m a good worse by pettishly refusing to do what they ha v e been doing ne :rly the whole session. In another sense, too, the position of Speaker Sayie and tixa Mouse le i ifenwhle, and th'4 is under * y \v, >7 9 1 «

few points bearing on the situa-I t'on from Wilson’s Digest of Par- 1 lia'mentary Law: Sec. 1,788. Each house is the sole and exclusive judge of its own privileges. Sec. 1,790. Neither house of parliament has power by any vote to create to itself new privileges, not warranted by known laws and customs. They are independent of each other and sole judges of their rights and privileges. Sec. 1,792. Whatever matter arises concerning either house or any member or offi.er ought to be discussed and adjudged in the house to which it relates. Sec. 1,354. It is a breach of order in debate to not ce what has been said on the same subject in the other house, * * or to refer to the action of the other house. Sec. 1,355. Neither house can exercise any a -thority over a member or fficer of the other house. Sec. 1,393. Neither may a member allude to debates in the other house.

S c. 1,398. Neither may a member speak offensive or insulting words against the character or < roceedings of either house. Sec. 1,781. But the mere order of the house will not justify an act otherwise illegal, and thegsimple declaration tha that order is made in exercise of a privilege does not prove the privilege, Sec. 1,806. The validity o* an election or return can not be drawn into question on the claim of privilege.

We hav ' enly quoted the salient features of those sections, and have not' (pioted all the sections that bear upon the point; but there seems to be enough to. show the fatal weakness of the position under all parliamentary law, and thus to leave the whole r publican posi tion without defenss. Evidently the News is almost persuaded to become a Christian; or what is the same thing —a good, si non-pure Democrat.

“There is nothing in the Consti+ion which so much as raises an inference that th« office ot Lieutenant Kiovet nor can become vaca.m m a legal or actual sense. If there was a vacancy, then the very Constitution which created the office filled the zame. An executive system in which the Chief Executive could in any event appoint bisown successor apparent, thereby vesting such appointee with power to become President of the Senate, has in my opinion found no precedent in our form of government. I he argument is that a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant-Governor having occurred, such-vacancy was to b ‘ tilled first by appointment by he Governor, and then by the e ectoral body in November, 1886, under the provisions of Section 4.6/' ,R. S. 1881. To this there are three answers: (1) Tlmre was no vacancy. (2) If there was, the Constitution provided a mode of filling it Ther than by the electoral body, viz.: by the election of a President pro tempore of theSenat . (3) The Constitut on by the clearest implication prohibits an election for Governor or Lieuten-ant-Govern or except for the term of tour years, which term can in no case c mmence at any other than the tune specked in that instrument. That the Constitution mak s no provision for election to fill vacancies in the office cf Governor or Leutenant-Governor, or for the limitation of the terms of persons dected to fill vacancies in those offices, is conclusive that no such vac ncies were contemplated.”

Judges Mitchell and Howk.