HUMPHREVILLE.

their proposition. books to Proposition No. 190, and also to the Constitution as it now is, they will readily see and understand the changes that are proposed to be made by the Commit

tee.

We have recommended no changes in those portions of the Article that we believe have worked well, and where no changes were indicated by the wants of the people of the State. Some of the changes that were reported, have already been ordered in other articles of the Constitution-one especially, that is, the change in the second section, fixing the time of holding the State election. It was ordered, if I remember rightly, on motion of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. PoWELL], that the time should be changed from the second Tuesday of October to the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. And although that change_was ordered against my particular objections, I accede to the will of the majority, as it has been expressed, and have reported in this article that change.

I will now proceed, Mr. Chairman, briefly as I may, to point out the changes that have been proposed. In the first section, no change is recommended.

In section two, the only change that has been recommended, is the change in the time of holding the election for members of the General Assembly, and I have said all I need say upon that change. I have only to indicate that we have struck out the words "second Tuesday of October," and proposed to insert in lieu thereof "the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November." I shall say nothing for or against this amendment. As a majority of this Convention have no doubt thought best to fix this time for the election, I acquiesce in it.

[SATURDAY,

quently in cases of doubtful expediency. Bills are often introduced-they may possibly be read once, but generally the rules are suspended and the bills frequently pressed through without being printed or properly considered. The rule is often in such cases suspended, and the bill passed without members knowing anything about what they are doing, and frequently, I am sorry to say, caring as little as they know. This ought not to be so. And we, therefore, thought it advisable, to provide that the vote to dispense with the reading of a bill upon three different days, should be taken by yeas and nays to be entered upon the Journal, and that upon the final passage of a bill no suspension of this rule should be had.

To the seventeenth section we propose no change.

The eighteenth section of the Proposition reported by the Committee, is a new section which contains a provision to give to the Governor of the State a veto power. The Committee were not unanimous in reporting this Proposition. Four members of the Committee objected to the Proposition, and I believe all the other members that were present, were in favor of adopting this provision giving the Governor the veto power. One member of the Committee, the gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. FORAN], was not present when the Report was made, and did not sign the Report, and I am not advised whether he concurred in giving the veto power or not. If I ever knew, I have forgotten. We all know the facilities with which the legislation, at times, is pressed through the General Assembly, and we all know that frequently, bills are thus pressed through the General Assembly which do not command the approval of the public generally; and we believe, that if there is a supervisory power in the Governor to check some of this imperfect legislation, it most certainly will operate beneficially to the people of the State. I do not fear that any valuable necessary legislation will be defeated by the veto of the Governor. But I do hope and beIn the sixteenth section of the Article, we pro-lieve that if this provision is adopted, much impose what was thought by the Committee to be a necessary amendment to that section; and it consists in supplying certain words in that section. The original section provides that "every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on three different days, unless, in case of urgency, threefourths of the House in which the question shall be pending, shall dispense with this rule."

In the third section, we propose no change. In the fourth, fifth and sixth sections, and indeed all the sections until we arrive at the sixteenth section, except the change indicated in the second section-no change is proposed by the Committee.

Now, we have proposed to add after the word "shall," "by a vote of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the Journal, dispense with this

Rule."

perfect legislation, much legislation that ought to be defeated, will be checked.

There were some members of the Committee that desired a qualification of this veto power, or an extension of it, rather, to this extent; that the Governor should have the power to object to a portion of a bill that should pass the General Assembly, and approve of any other portion of the bill. This provision would apply mainly, perhaps, only to bills making appropriations of public money; but when we considered the other amendments to this Propsec-osition, that the Committee have reported upon in reference to the passage of appropriation bills, it was thought by a majority of the Committee that it would not be necessary to give this extended qualification of the veto power to the Governor.

We also propose to add as follows: "but the reading of a bill on its final passage shall in no case be dispensed with."

The other portions of the section remain as in the present Constitution.

I believe that those amendments were adopted by the unanimous vote of the Committee, and were adopted, because it was supposed they were necessary. We know that frequently upon the passage of a bill in the General Assembly, the rules are suspended without a vote being entered upon the Journal, and very fre

As I said before, this provision was incorporated into this Report upon the motion of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. HUNT], who is not now in his seat, but upon whom I depend mainly for arguments on this section 18. I shall, therefore, pass it over with a very few, if any, further remarks.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the gentleman from

Medina [Mr. HUMPHREVILLE] give his attention to the last paragraph of section 18, for a moment before he leaves it? I see that that contains a point that he has not explained-the clause with regard to joint resolutions.

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The last clause referred to by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. HITCHCOCK] has reference to orders and resolutions. It reads as follow: "Every order, or resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of both branches may be necessary, (except on the question of adjournment,) shall be presented to the Governor," etc.

I do not know why these resolutions and orders which have the force and effect of laws should not be presented to the Governor as well as bills. I do not desire to discuss this matter, however, and, as I said before, I will pass on, leaving this provision to be further discussed by others.

Mr. POND. I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from Medina [Mr. HUMPHREVILLE] before he leaves this part of the subject. I desire to ask what the reason is for any change in the time for the Governor returning a bill, after the General Assembly adjourns, and before it adjourns? The section provides, " if any bill shall not be returned within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it." But in case the General Assembly adjourns, it is to be returned to the Secretary of State within ten days after such adjournment. Why not say in this case that if it shall not be returned within ten days after it is presented to the Governor it shall become a law?

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I cannot answer the question, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact. I did not criticise strictly the details of this section. It was adopted by the Committee, beCause we supposed it would be right. It may not be right in all its details, but I would prefer not to have gentlemen propose questions to me on the details, until I get through with the principal remark I shall make. Then, if I have time, and am able to do so, I will answer any questions gentlemen may propound to me. I do not set myself up as the sole advocate for this Article, or the amendments proposed by the Committee. When I get through with what I have to say, so far as I am concerned, I shall commit the whole thing to the good sense of the Committee, and leave it for them to deal with as they shall see fit. I do not suppose that all the intelligence of this Convention was embodied in the Committee on Legislative Department. But I have simply to say that that Committee, after numerous and long meetings, and after having given considerable attention to this Article, intending to bring to that consideration our best judgment, and our best abilities, have reported what we have. If it meets the approbation of this Committee and of the Convention, I, myself, shall be glad. If their better wisdom sees fit to change it materially, I shall not be disappointed, although I may regret it to some extent.

I will now proceed: Section 19 in the Report is section 18 in the present Constitution, and makes no change.

Section 20 is section 19 in the present Consti

tution, and makes no change. There is a change in the numbering, and section 21, which is old section 20, is not changed.

If

The next section, 22, is old section 21. Section 23 takes the place of the old section 22. This is materially changed from the old section 22 of the present Constitution. gentlemen will give me their attention, I will point out the change. The old section reads as follows: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, except in pursuance of a specific aptien shall be made for a longer period than two propriation made by law; and no appropriayears." And now comes the change proposed by the Committee. This change was drawn up and submitted to the Committee by a sub-Committee of that Committee, after due consideration. I believe the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. MUELLER] was the author of this change, and it was adopted by the Committee, I believe, unanimously. I think there was no one member of the Committee that objected to this amendment. I will now read what the Committee propose to add to that section:

"The purpose for which the appropriation is made, shall be distinctly stated in the bill, and any bill approbeen provided for by pre-existing law, shall be read item priating money, the subject matter of which shall have by item, and a separate vote taken on each item, and any item failing to receive a majority of the votes of all the shall be stricken out, and no amendment to incorporate members elected to the House where the bill is pending, any additional item or to increase the amount of any item, shall be adopted unless the same shall receive a like majority of all the members."

In view of the facility with which appropriations that are objectionable to many are incorporated into appropriation bills, we thought it was advisable and proper that this restraint should be put upon the passage of appropriation bills. It is not uncommon that an item is incorporated into the appropriation bill by a bare majority of a quorum, that never, upon its own merits, could receive a constitutional majority of all the members elected, but being in a bill, a majority of those present can keep it there, and the bill must be lost, or this objectionable appropriation must pass with the other necessary items of appropriation. This is an evil which has been felt by the General Assembly, and by the people, ever since the adoption of the present Constitution, and, perhaps, ever since the organization of the State. It was to cure that, that this provision is recommended, and it is believed the incorporation of this section will effectually prevent the evil. That each appropriation bill shall be read item by item, and a separate vote taken by yeas and nays upon each item of appropriation, and any item not receiving a majority of all the members elected to the House where the bill is pending, shall be stricken out. We thought that if an item in an appropriation could not, of itself, command a majority of all the votes of the House where it is pending, it ought not to prevail.

Section 24 is the old section 29, somewhat changing in the order in which they are arranged in the present Constitution, and in this section, there is this change. The original section in our Constitution reads: "No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, public agent, or contractor, after the service shall have been rendered or the contract entered into." The existing law annuls such compen

HUMPHREVILle.

sation or claim by law, by a two-thirds vote of
the members elected to each branch. Now, the
Committee proposes this further change: "No
such allowance shall be made, except by bill,
and no such bill shall embrace several different
items of compensation or claim." The sense
is, that no compensation, not provided for by
pre-existing law, shall be passed by grouping
together several different items of compensa-
tion or several different claims, but that each
separate claim shall stand upon its own merits.
Cut off, as far as possible, what is publicly called,
and, perhaps, at the present time technically
called, log-rolling, for the purpose of pressing
through the General Assembly objectionable
claims; that is, "I will vote for your claim if
you will vote for mine." Now, this cannot be
effectually done by this proposition, because
there might be log-rolling and combination
among members.
One might say, you support
my bill, and I will support yours; but this
amendment renders it less easy to combine in
that way, than if these several items or claims
were incorporated into one bill. The ordinary
mode of legislation, as I said before, is such,
that they could be incorporated by a majority of
those present, which might be a majority of a
quorum simply, but this section requires a ma-
jority of two-thirds of all the members elected
to pass upon each item. This is not provided
for in section 23, for that merely refers to items
of an appropriation that had been provided for
by pre-existing laws, and this section 24 pro-
vides for the allowance of claims that have not
been provided for by pre-existing law.
Section 25. This is section 23 in the present
Constitution. This is reported back without
any change.

So of section 26 in this Report, which is section 24 of our present Constitution.

[SATURDAY,

before the week of opening the session of the General Assembly. I believe the change from Monday to Wednesday is a good one.

The change from biennial to annual sessions is of more doubtful expediency. We all know, Mr. Chairman, at least we all believe, it was the intention of the framers of our present Constitution, and of the people when they adopted it, that there should be only biennial sessions of the General Assembly, and the Constitution is framed with a view to carrying on the government of the State under that arrangement. But there being no absolute prohibition of adjourned sessions, there has never been but one year since the adoption of the present Constitution, but what there has been a session of the General Assembly. We all remember, perhaps, at least those of us who are old enough to remember the proceedings of the first session under the present Constitution, Mr. Mason, I think, of Clarke county, a member of the first General Assembly, who was also a member of the Convention which framed the present Constitution, was so outraged at the adjourning over to the next winter and holding an adjourned session of the General Assembly, that he resigned his seat, because he believed it was a violation of the Constitution. It, however, has been prac ticed and defended, and probably this adjourned session is not a violation of the Constitution. I will be willing, if a majority of this Committee sees fit, to strike out this word annual, and insert biennial, with the provision that there shall be no adjourned session of the General Assembly, and none other than the regular biennial sessions, unless, upon some great emergency, the Governor shall see fit to call an extra session of the General Assembly. A blank is left for the time when the first General Assembly under this Constitution shall meet, for the reason that we do not know when this Constitution is going to be adopted, and the first election is going to take place; and as it is progressing, I do not believe that any but Almighty power can tell us, and that power does not see fit to tell us the time. and this blank can be filled up at some future

Section 27. This is reported as old section twenty-five, changed somewhat, and I am free to admit that I am not strenuously in favor of this change. I would much rather the Report had been different from what it is. I will read the change we have made, and then leave it for the consideration of the Committee, after stat-time and in the proper manner. ing what I would be willing to see incorporated in this section: "All regular sessions shall commence on the first Wednesday of January annually." The present Constitution provides that all regular sessions of the General Assembly shall commence on the first Monday of January biennially. "The first session of the General Assembly shall commence on the first Monday in January, 1852." I agree to the change from Monday until Wednesday, so as to prevent the necessity of members of the General Assembly-unless they choose to do soleaving their homes before Monday of the week. By the present Constitution, as the session commenced on Monday at ten o'clock, members wanting to be there at the opening of the General Assembly have to leave home the week before. We all know how it is. Members want to make some arrangement in Columbus for their boarding, and sometimes members of various political parties want to hold some caucuses, and want to decide what officers they should elect, and it is right and proper they should do

So.

This change will give them an opportunity to do this without being obliged to leave home

Section 28 of this Report is a material change of section 26 of our present Constitution. Section 26 was put into that Constitution for seve ral reasons. Among them was, that all general laws should have a uniform operation throughout the State, and that was for the purpose of cutting off, what might be termed, provincial legislation, that is, a law that might have an ef fect in some portions of the State and not in other portions, and what was as law in one portion of the State, would not be known as law in any other portion of the State, and it was believed necessary and proper to make this provision. One provision in this section 26 was intended to cut off the practice that had then obtained in the State, of voting by counties, cities, towns and townships, for subscribing to the capital stock of railroad companies. The intention was to prevent all such votes, and I think it will have that effect. If not, it can be so amended by this Committee as to make that prohibition more plain or explicit, to prevent the voting of counties, cities, towns and townships aiding in the building of railroads. The old section was something like this: "All laws of a general na

ture shall have a uniform operation throughout the State, nor shall any act, except such as relates to public schools, be passed, to take effect upon the approval of any other authority than the General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution." When this provision was under consideration in the Convention that formed our present Constitution, not precisely in its present form, but very nearly like it-it was section 31 in the Report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, originated in that Convention, and read as follows:

"No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the General Assembly, nor shall any law be passed contingent upon the approval or disapproval of any other authority, except as provided in this Constitution."

conferred upon all counties, cities, villages, townships and municipalities of the same general class."

This last clause was inserted for the purpose of cutting off the enormous local legislation that has crept into our system. For a few years under our present Constitution, it was supposed that local legislation was prohibited substantially, and but very few of what are denominated local laws were passed; but year by year the innovation has been creeping in upon us, so that at the present a very large proportion of acts passed by the Legislature are of a local nature, a great many of them, such as the people generally do not approve. We want to cut off all such local legislation, so far as it is possible to do so.

Another Committee of this body, if I remember rightly, have divided these corporations, municipal corporations, county, township, etc., into classes. Whether that classification is correct or not, is not material. It was not thought advisable, in this section, to undertake to classify these cities, towns and townships; but I leave that for some other committee to do; but that no special privileges shall be granted to any one city, county, township, or incorporated village that is not granted to all others similarly situated, of the same class.

I shall not have time, during the continuance of my hour, nor do I desire to point out all the local legislation that has prevailed in late years, and that this section is intended to remedy. I shall leave the section to the better judgment of the Committee. Whatever they see fit to do, that I shall be satisfied with.

Section 29 is our present section 27, in which no changes are made.

Section 30 is old section 28, in which no changes are made.

Section 31 is old section 30, in which no changes are made.

While that section was under consideration, Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, inquired what this clause meant: "Nor shall any law be passed contingent upon the approval or disapproval of any other authority than the General Assembly, except as provided in this Constitution." Mr. SAWYER, who was the Chairman of the Committee that reported that Article to the Convention, answered in this way: "Mr. SAWYER said he would explain what he thought of it, though he preferred some other gentleman to do it. We have been in the habit of passing laws in the Legislature, and submitting them to the people. For instance, we authorized a subscription upon turnpike roads and railroads running into cities, and it becomes a law, provided the people vote for it, and a good many other things of this kind, and he would like to prevent all that. We provide in the Constitution for certain laws which the people may vote upon." And in the discussion throughout the debates in that Convention upon that clause, those who opposed its introduction, mainly did it for the reason that some other clause in the Constitution effectually prohibited counties, cities and towns from voting to raise money for railroads. Those that were in favor of voting to tax the peo- The present section 32 is old section 31. In ple by a vote, wished to make the pro- that there is a change. But, before proceeding vision more definite and distinct to that end, to demonstrate that change, I will state, that to so that it could not be misunderstood. But the this section 31 there were several of the ComSupreme Court, commenting upon this provi-mittee objected. Section 31 provides for making sion, have frittered away all of its intended meaning and operation. They say the law takes effect upon its passage in the General Assembly, and it is only the application of the law in particular cases that is provided for by the vote of the people, and that is not prohibited. This section, as we have reported it, is intended by the Committee to change that rule of construction. But I will read it in connection with the amendment now, so as to let the Committee understand what the condition of this section is, as it now stands in the Report as amended: "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the State, Lor shall any act, or part of any act, except uch as relates to public schools, public buildings and public bridges, be passed to take effect upon a vote of the people affected thereby, or the execution of which shall depend upon such vote, or upon the approval of any other authority than the General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, nor shall any act be passed conferring special powers or privileges upon any county, city, village, town-hip, or other municipality, that shall not be

new counties, removing county seats, &c. One or two members of the Committee wanted the restrictions already contained in this section to be somewhat changed and lightened, so that new counties could be made more easily than they can under our present Constitution. And one member of the Committee was in favor of the clause as it stands now, with this exception: that where a proposition is made to remove a county seat to a point more remote from the center of the county than where it now is, the vote to do so shall require a majority of twothirds of all the voters of the county, instead of a majority, as this section provides. A majority of the Committee propose not to change the section.

Section 32 makes this important change: The old section of our present Constitution provides that the members and officers of the General Assembly shall receive a fixed compensation, to be prescribed by law, and no other allowance, or perquisites, &c. The change that the Committee proposes is this: they strike out the word "compensation" from the present Constitution, in section 31, and insert the word "salary"; so

HUMPHREVILLE, MINER, GRISWOLD, HITCHCOCK.