p. 89. If it be true, as stated in contestant's brief, "that the precise question was fairly raised in the contest between Mr. Lockheart and Mr. Loveland," (and the committee agrees that it was,) then, as a precedent, it does not sustain the position of contestant in this case, as reference to the report of the committee will show that the committee was unanimous in favor of the sitting member, Mr Loveland, who, it was conceded, held the office of sheriff of Holmes county, Ohio, at the time of his election as a member of the General Assembly, and the House afterward concurred in the report. The committee is of opinion that the question was "fairly raised" in the above case of Lockheart v. Loveland, for the reason that under section 6 article 2 of the Constitution either house may of its own motion "inquire into the election returns and qualifications of its own members-" It is at least certain that if this case has any value as precedent, it sustains the views of the committee in the case under consideration. So, also, if it be claimed that the case of Hon. Robert B. Dennis has any application here, then it is also, in the opinion of the committee, a precedent in harmony with the views already expressed. The facts in that case show that after the election and qualification of Mr. Dennis as a member of the Fifty ninth General Assembly, and, while he held a seat in the same, to wit, July 19, 1870, he was appointed to a lucrative office under the authority of the United States, which office he continued to hold until December 1, following his appointment. In fact, he held said appointive office and "held a seat in " the General Assembly, at one and the same time; and yet, in the judgment of the committee of that case, unanimously given, he could, even at the date of inquiry into the facts, divest himself of the disability at pleasure, by a resignation of the appointive office. The language of the Constitution is "shall be eligible to or have a seat in," etc. If the definition of the word "ineligible" urged upon the committee by contestant be accepted, still it is difficult to see why, if a person ineligible to the office of representative by reason of his holding another office at the time of his election, nevertheless be in fact elected to the General Assembly, he may not, by resignation of the other office, before taking his seat in the General Assembly, as effectually remove the disability as a person who, the Constitution says, shall not have a seat in the General Assembly by reason of his holding another office, but nevertheless in fact is holding another office, and has a seat in the General Assembly at one and the same time, and yet he may at any time remove the disability by resignation of the other office, and continue to hold his seat in the General Assembly. The disablity, in fact, exists in the one case as much as in the other, and if so, a resignation should be as effective in the one case as in the other. But if it be doubted whether these cases "fairly raised" the question involved in the case under consideration, and are for that reason not to be relied on as precedents, there can be no doubt, in the judgment of the committee, that the precise question was made in the case of Newman . Glover, the latter of whom held the office of Register in Bankruptcy for the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio, under the authority of the United States, both prior to and at the time of his election to the General Assembly, and continued to hold said office of Register in Bankruptcy until December 30, 1869, at which time he resigned said office, and his resignation was accepted before he took his seat in the Fifty-ninth General Assembly. [House Journal, 1870, pages 159 and 165. That the question was fairly made in this case, the journals of 1870 and 1871 clearly show, and yet the report of the committee in favor of Mr. Glover's right to hold his seat in the General Assembly was sustained by the House, as appears on page 133 of the journal of 1871. The committee gives due consideration to this case as a precedent, and no case having been found in which the question has been decided otherwise, it is, in the opinion of the committee, entitled to great weight. The question already considered being the only ground of contest, and it being admitted that the contestee was fairly elected by an overwhelming majority, and the question being one of doubt even under the old Constitution, which was certainly more explicit than the present one and all the precedents under the new constitution being fairly in support of the conclusion herein reached, the committee is unwilling to controvert the judgment of those who have in former General Assemblies had the question under consideration, and given an interpretation to the constitutional provision in controversy. If the correctness of this conclusion be even doubtful, still such doubts, in the unanimous opinion of the committee, should be resolved in favor of the constitutional right of the people to be represented by the man of their choice, once freely and fairly made at the ballot-box. No frivolous technicalities should be premitted to thwart the will of the people. The committee therefore reports that the Hon. Moses H. Kirby is entitled to his seat in the Sixty-fourth General Assembly for the constitutional term of two years from the first day of January, 1880, and asks to be discharged from further consideration of the subject. D. A. HOLLINGSWORTH, T. J. PRINGLE, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' ORPHANS' HOME AND SCHOOL FOR IMBECILE YOUTH. The committee on Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan's Home and School for Imbecile Youth, which was instructed under Senate Resolution No. 80 to investigate certain charges made in the public press, reflecting upon the conduct of the officers in charge of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home at Xenia, and to report its findings to the Senate, report: That in pursuance of said resolution it has examined thirty-four witnesses, including the officers in charge of and a number of the employes of said institution, and that every person was called as a witness, who so far as the committee could learn, knew or had an opportunity of knowing anything about the matters charged. As the result of said investigation, the committee finds but one of the charges made to be true. We find that an abortion was procured on the matron in said institution named in said charges on or about December 26, 1880, but that no one connected with that institution was in any way responsible for the condition of the matron at the time she was employed at the institution, on or about August 15, 1880, she being pregnant at that time, and that her condition at the time of her employment in the institution was not known or suspected by any one. That prior to that time she was of good character, and came to the institution very highly recommended, and no blame attaches to any one in charge of said institution for her appointment as such matron. We find that the condition of said matron while in said institution, prior to said abortion, was known to no one connected with said institution, except a matron now discharged, who learned the same some time in November, 1880, and Dr. Brundage, the physician o that institution, who learned it on December 24, 1880. We find also that no one connected with said institution knew that an abortion had been procured on said matron prior to the day of her discharge from the institution, except said matron now discharged, and said physician, who knew it within a very short time after that same had been procured, and nearly three weeks before she was discharged. The said physician did not inform any one of the officers in charge of the institution of the condition of said matron or that an abortion had been procured on her, until after said matron, now discharged, had informed the superintendent of the home, Major W. L. Shaw, of these facts. We find that said matron so informing was discharged from the institution on or about January 11, 1881, and has not been since employed therein; that said superintendent, as soon as he was informed of the facts above stated, discharged the matron on whom the abortion was performed from the institution, and she has not since been employed therein; and that said physi cian is still connected with said institution as its physician. We further find that no blame attaches to any one now connected with said institution, with reference to said charges, except to said physician, and in the opinion of the committee his conduct, in failing to at once notify the superintendent of the condition of said matron as soon as he learned it, and especially his concealing the fact that an abortion had been procured on her for nearly three weeks after its occurrence, and until after it was discovered by said superintendent through other sources, are matters. highly censurable on his part, and reflecting upon his fidelity as an officer of said institution. We think he should either have informed the superintendent of the facts as soon as he learned them, or at once resigned his office. JOHN C. ENTREKIN, L. HARPER, E. N. HARTSHORN, R. A. HORR. REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE PAST MANAGEMENT OF THE REFORM SCHOOL FOR BOYS. The joint committee of the Senate and House, appointed under the following resolution: H. J. No. 55: Whereas, certain charges have been made reflecting upon the past management of the Ohio Reform School at Lancaster, Ohio; therefore, Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That a committee be appointed, consisting of two on the part of the Senate and three on the part of the House, with power to send for papers and persons to investigate said charges, and report its findings to this General Assemblyrespectfully report: They have taken the testimony of a number of witnesses, touching certain charges alleged against the past management of the Reform School for Boys, in a pamphlet published and circulated by one E. L. Small in the summer of 1880. Your committee find that during the past management of the school certain indiscreet and immoral habits have been prevalent, but not to the extent alleged by said Small in his publication. The management we find has been and is still diligently endeavoring to guard against and destroy these practices. Your committee also find that during the past management of the school, severe whippings have been administered to the inmates for violation of the rules of the school, and in some instances the punishment has been unreasonably severe and excessive. THOMAS J. CARREN, S. A. CONRAD. |