THE BREVIER LEGISTATIVE REPORTS.
TWELFTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
MONDAY, February 27, 1871.The Senate met at 2 o'clock P. M., pursuantto adjournment last Friday, the Lieutenant Governor in the chair.
As soon as the gavel was sounded commanding order--
Mr. SCOTT said: Mr. President I move that when the Senate adjourns, it adjourn to meet Thursday at 2 o'clock.
Mr. WOOD. Mr. President, before that motion is put, I desire to ask leave of absence for myself and the Senator from Warrick. (Mr. Fuller)
Mr. FULLER Mr. President, I ask leaveof absence during the remainder of the session, as I have received information from my sister that my brother-in-law is dangerously sick.
The LIEUT GOVERNOR. Is there any objection to granting leave of absence to the Senator from Fountain and the Senator from Warrick? The Chair hears none. They have leave of absence.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. The resolution of the Senator from Vigo (Mr. Scott) is out of order, as I understood the Chair to rule that no resolution can be entertained. If a resolution to adjourn is in order, the pending resolution is in order. I understand the President has decided that no resolution is in order.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. No, I have not decided that.
Mr. HENDERSON. Then I demand that the resolution be sent up in writing.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise to a question of order. I took an appeal from the decision of the Chair at our last sitting, just before the adjournment, and I desire that it be read. The Secretary has it.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR read the appeal.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, that is an appeal taken before the adjournment on Friday afternoon, and is lost now. Pending a motion to adjourn, the Chair made some decision, and the appeal was taken, and the motion to adjourn prevailed.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I ruled out of order the resolution offered the day previous by the Senator from Morgan (Mr. Henderson), and the Senator from Laporte(Mr. Bradley) took an appeal from my decision. The appeal was not perfected at the time, but he had the appeal entered, and I think it is in order now.
Mr. GREEN (in his seat.) Not now, because an adjournment took place immediately.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Senator from Vigo (Mr. Scott) offers the following resolution; (to the Secretary, read it.)
The Secretary read as follows:
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns it adjourns to meet on Thursday at 2 o'clock P. M.
Mr. GLESSNER. Mr. President, I rise to a privilege question. I desire and ask leave of absence for the Senator from Switzerland and Ripley (Mr. Rosebrough.) His court is in session and he desires to go home.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The Senator from Switzerland has leave of absence indefinitely.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, my point of order was that the resolution of the Senator from Vigo (Mr. Scott) under the ruling of the chair the other day can not be entertained. I introduced a resolution and the chair ruled it out of order, and the only proposition that can be made now, as I understand it, under the ruling of the chair, is to adjourn from day to day.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Senator misapprehends the ruling of the chair. I think the reporter got it down correctly at the time. If I had it here I would read it. I ruled that the General Assembly consists of a Senate and House of Representatives, and that if one branch of the General Assembly was destroyed by the resignation of a sufficient number to reduce the number of its members to less than a quorum, it paralyzes the the power of the other house for all legislative purposes. That was the decision of the chair, and that this resolution offered by the Senator from Morgan (Mr. Henderson,) was a resolution to pay the expenses of, not the Senate, but the General Assembly, and therefore I ruled it out of order.
Mr. BRADLEY. The only decision I appealed from was the decision of the President page: 378[View Page 378] that the resolution was out of order. That is all the decision I appeal from. This is not a concurrent resolution, nor is it a joint resolution. It i simply a Senate resolution.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Yes, sir. I understand that.
Mr. BRADLEY. The resolution is set out in the appeal.
Mr. GREEN (interposing) If the chair pleases, the point of order made is this--
Mr. BRADLEY (resuming.) Mr. President, I want to say further. The decision of the President was made during a roll call, before the result had been announced. Right then I took the appeal, aud the President allowed the appeal, but I had not time to send it up before adjournment took place.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I understand that The gentleman states it correctly. The Senator can have the appeal, of course.
Mr GREEN. My point of order was that he can not have it now, because it was out of order pending a roll call, and the Senate having adjourned, it must come in anew.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I think the appeal is in order, and pending the appeal, I will rule the resolution of the Senator from Vigo, [Mr. Scott,] out of order, that the Senate may vote upon the question raised by the Senator from Laporte, [Mr. Bradley.] The decision is a little peculiar, but I think it is right. Read the appeal.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, will that interfere with my resolution?
Mr. BROWN. A motion to adjourn is always in order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Let the Senator have his appeal.
Mr. BROWN. What is the point of order in the appeal?
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR to the Secretary. Read the appeal.
The Secretary read as follows:
"Senator Henderson, having on Thursday, February 23, introduced the following resolution, to-wit:
"Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and he is hereby directed to issue his warrant on the treasury in favor of A. E. and W. H. Drapier, for the same number of copies of the BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS of the Forty-seventh Assembly as have been furnished every session since 1857, the same price paid per page per copy for the last several volumes, to be paid out of the tund appropriated for legislative expenses; and three copies to be bound in sheep for each member and elective officer."
"Which was pending when the Senate adjourned, and on the meeting of the Senate at the next session, a motion was made to adjourn, pending a roll call on said motion, the President decided the said resolution of Senator Henderson out of order, from which decision we respectfully appeal
[Signed] JAMES BRADLEY, E. HENDERSON."
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. I based my decision, I will say to the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] and others who were not here at the time, upon this ground: This isnot a resolution to pay the expenses of the Senate simply but to pay the expenses of the General Assembly, and to that extent it goes towards legislating as an act of the General Assembly, and for that reason I think it not in order. I think it might be in order, if the Senate will allow me, to introduce a resolution to pay any employe, or to grant leave of absence, or anything else that is purely a matter within the scope of the Senate; but in view of the fact that thirty-four Representatives have resigned, and thereby destroyed one branch of the General Assembly, there is no General Assembly, and we can not do an act that looks toward legislating for the General Assembly, in my judgment.
Mr. BROWN, Mr. President, I concur in the opinion of the Chair, as stated by the Chair. The only trouble with me is as to the effect of the resolution, and I am inclined to favor the opinion of the Chair on that, and think I shall vote to sustain the opinion of the Chair. My idea about our situation, in brief, is this: that it is competent for this Senate to pass any resolution the object hoped to be accomplished by which depends solely upon the Senate, and where the action of the House of Representatives is not involved. I think the Senate may do that, but I do not believe there is any rightful authority for this Senate to do anything either by way of a resolution or by the passage of a bill, the existence of which depends upon the action of the House, and inasmuch as this resolution is not a resolution merely to pay some of the expenses of the Senate, but a resolution to pay the expenses of the General Assembly, upon reflection I am inclined to think the Chair ia right an shall vote to sustain it.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President. I call again attention to the reading of the resolution. It is not a joint resolution, nor is it a concurrent resolution. There is nothing in it with regard to paying the expenses of the General Assembly. It is simply a resolution of the Senate and applies only to the Senate.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. If the Senator will allow me, I will state that the resolution is to pay the expenses of both branches of the General Assembly.
Mr. BRADLEY. Not at all.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. Let it be read.
Mr. BRADLEY. Let it be read.
The Secretary read the resolution again.
Mr. BROWN. That has been done here tofore by concurrent action of the two Houses.
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR. That is the way it ought to be done. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
Mr. LASSELLE. Mr. President. Before the vote is taken I wish to say that while we may not pass a concurrent resolution, the question is have we not as a Senate wild a quorum present to pass any resolution having reference to our action as a body? True, as far as this session is concerned, if we were to pass a concurrent resolution it would be a nulity, because there is no quo- page: 379[View Page 379] rum in the other House to pass it there, but we have an act passed in 1867, providing that any business that has not been completed at the regular session will take its place in the business of a special session immediately following
The LIEUT. GOVERNOR Let me ask the Senator a question. Does not that presuppose the idea of the existence of a General Assembly--a Senate and a House of Representatives?
Mr. LASSELLE. I have no doubt of that point. None whatever. But I will proceed to give my opinion, and in doing so let us view this matter calmly and dispassionately, as the Senate of Indiana ought to do. Now, sir, as to the question, is this a legislative body? There is no doubt as to this being a Senate; in the House there is not a quorum to do business; but I think it is a legislative body in the contemplation of the Constitution. There is no question of that fact in my mind. The fact there is no quorum there, does not go to the question before us Members of the Legislature are elected under the Constitution, take the oath, and after organization under the prescribed rules, then they are a House of Representatives, I agree that after the record shows there is no quorum they are not able to proceed with legislative business That is clear to my mind, although some very prominent individuals, among others Governor Morton, took an extreme view of this matter. Others think that neither House in the absence of a quorum has the power to adjourn sine die--has the right to do nothing but adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members. Others again take the position of Governor Morton, that although there may be less than a quorum--though enough may have resigned and did, leaving less than a quorum, yet those remaining, be they 20, 40, or 65, are a House, and two-thirds of that House is a quorum capable of going on and doing Legislative business.
I am not one of those who take that view, and I say to the credit of the Republican party of Indiana that I do not think there is not a man in the Senate or House that will sustain Governor Morton in that view which goes to the extreme. I think I take a conservative, constitutional position upon this question. I shall avoid extremes, and look at it in a constitutional, plain, practical, reasonable point of view. When one hundred members of the House of Representatives are elected, two-thirds of that number, or any number above sixty-seven, constitutes the House, and when they meet and are organized that body has received an existence as a legislative body under the constitution, and it maintains its existence as a legislative body under the constitution until the termination of its existence, and its existence can not be terminated except by an adjournment sine die. Now it may not have full power during all the time of its existence to do every legislative act--but, sir, it is a legislative body under the constitution. It has a Speaker, and it has officers and its members may vote upon questions--it may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance ot absent members--it may do everything but perform legislative business.
Now, Mr. President, if it be true that because the House has no quorum we can do no business, what kind of a predicament would we be placed in? This Senate has passed hundreds, and I may say thousands of laws since the organization of this State, when there was no quorum in the other House. We have frequently passed bills here when they were not in session and when they had no quorum, and if it be true that because the House has no quorum we should do no legislative business here, when they adjourn for only two or three days as they have a right to do under the Constitution without our consent, are we to suspend all legislative business?
The LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. Certainly not. But now we are officially informed that there is no House, and we know that there cannot be a House this session.
Mr. LASSELLE. I apprehend that makes no difference. It is true there may be a point made by taking that view; and, Sir, I admit, of course, that there is no quorum,but in my opinion that makes the House no less a concurrent legislative body with this,from the fact that it has been organized, was put into existence, and has its existence terminated? I submit that question to Senators. Was it not a House on the day we first met--on the day we organized? Has it ceased to be a House? If so, how has it ceased to be a House? It must still be alive unless its existence has been terminated. It is true enough members of that House has resigned to break a quorum,so far limiting its powers, but has it terminated its existence? Is it not a House of Representatives under the Constitution? True, it has not full power equal with this body, and must remain so until both Houses agree to terminate the session by an adjournment sine die.
Suppose we pass a bill that the House has passed and send it to the House for the Speaker to sign. The Speaker is a ministerial officer, and nothing more. The constitution has put him there to sign bills and do other acts, whether there is a quorum or not. He is independent of a quorum. He is no part of the legislature. It is made his duty by the constitution to sign bills that may come before him. That is as much his business with a quorum as without a quorum. Now, the power of the House is limited to a quorum--it is limited to legislative business only when it has a quorum; but the duties of a Speaker are not limited to a quorum. There is no limitation in that respect by the constitution, and I maintain that it is just as much his duty if we pass a bill under the requirements of the constitution to sign that bill now, as if there was a full quorum in the House.
In regard to the merits of this question, it seems to me we are sent here to perform all legislation necessary. I am not going to reflect upon the legislation of the House. I page: 380[View Page 380] stand here as a Senator to perform my duties as a Senator in this body, and it seems to me not only in consonance with our duty and dignity as Senators having been sent here by the people to remain until the last moment and perform every action we have the power to do; but in my opinion, sir, if we adjourn and go home without making every reasonable effort to perform the labors before us, we will be censurable by our constituents and we ought to be censured.
Now, if there should be any doubt upon this matter in the minds of gentlemen we ought to take the benefit of it in favor of the people--in favor of doing their legislative business. If we should make a mistake, which I think we will not, the Governor, whose duty it is to look into the constitution, can give his opinion, approving or disapproving our acts. Let us, even in case of doubt, pass every bill we have before us from the House, and do all other necessary legislation; let it go before the Governor; let him take counsel upon it, and if he thinks we have no power to pass bills, that ends the matter. He is a sound lawyer, and if he comes to the conclusion that we have no power to perform legislative acts, until we have such objection from the Governor, I will insist it is our duty to go on and at least act upon every bill of the House before us. We have, I am told, thirty-five bills from the House, some of them very important bills, and I think we ought to act upon these bills, approve or disapprove of them, as may be for the best interests of the people.
I will say, in conclusion, Mr. President, that this is a very grave question. I know there is a division of opinion on this point, and I think the Senate, out of self-respect for itself and the people of Indiana, ought to think calmly upon it, and take time to discuss it fully and fairly, and act accordingly, because what we do on this occasion will perhaps be a precedent for years. Of course we know how we are all governed by precedents.
Mr. GRAY. I desire to ask the Senator when the Legislature assembled on the 5th of January last, whether there could have been any such a thing as a House till two-thirds of the members were sworn in?
Mr. LASSELLE. I think not.
Mr. GRAY. I will ask the Senator if he thinks it requires two thirds of the members to be sworn in and take their seat in order to constitute a House, whether, when a sufficient number resigns to make less than two-thirds, it does not destroy the House?
Mr. LASSELLE. The House can have no existence until its organization, and when that organization is completed, it continues its existence until that organization is terminated. That is just the difference. In one case the House never had a life, existence or beginning, and in the other case it had a beginning--a legal, constitutional organization, and that organisation was kept up with full privileges and powers until 34 members resigned; but that I maintain, does not terminate its existence. If gentlemen can show me authority anywhere that a resignation terminated the constitutional existence, I should like to see it.
Mr. GRAY. The tenth section of article four of the Constitution says: "Each House when assembled shall choose its own officers, (the President of the Senate excepted,) judge the elections, qualifications and returns of its own members," &c. I will ask the Senator if he thinks the House of Representatives now, can judge of the elections qualifications and returns of its members?
Mr. LASSELLE. I will admit, as I have before, that the House, in the absence of a quorum, can not do legislative business. That I admit all the time, but I do not admit that the House has no existence. Simply because it is shorn of its powers, is it therefore shorn of its life? No, sir. It has all the power not taken from it by the Constitution. The only power taken from it in the absence of a quorum is the power to do legislative business.
Mr. BROWN. I understood the Senator to say that the House of Representatives still has all powers, except those lost by one-third of its members resigning. Will the Senator be kind enough to tell us what power that House can exercise?
Mr. LASSELLE. I will tell the gentleman, if he don't know, that if he will look into the constitution of our State he will find that they have the power to adjourn from day to day.
Mr. BROWN (in his seat.) That is satisfactory.
Mr. LASSELLE. And I do not know, Mr. President, but they may have other powers, because the rules of law and construction are made to apply to constitutional questions. For instance, the Constitution gave the Honse no power to adjourn sine die, either with or without the concurrent action of the Senate. Will any gentleman tell me that that body, with our concurrence, could not adjourn sine die? Why, sir, it that were the case, we could never adjourn sine die. Supposing the limitation instead of being 61 days, was like, I believe, the British Parliament, seven years, according to the construction of some of these gentlemen we would have to continue in session for seven years, simply because 34 members of the House have resigned? No, Mr. President; there is reason in everything. It is not necessary that the constitution and law should state every particular. Human reason and common sense must explain the constitution as they do law. What I contend is, that it is a House in contemplation of the constitution, and having received life and existence, nothing since has terminated that existence, and nothing can terminate it but an adjournment sine die, unless there may be a section in the constitution which authorizes the Governor to do so.
Mr GLESSNER. The constitution terminates its existence by limitation.
Mr. LASSELLE. I admit that its existence can only be terminated by limitation of the Constitution,or by its own action. As I said before, Mr. President, I think we ought to do all the legislative business we can, for we page: 381[View Page 381] may be doing that which will be quoted as a precedent hereafter. I feel anxious, as I have been sent here by the people of Indiana to do everything I can to advance their interests, and when I find I can do nothing to that end, I am willing to adjourn and go home.
I am one of those who do not wish to sit here after we find that we can do nothing in the way of legislating for the people. As far as I am concerned I wish to state that I will use all the doubts that may be in the case for the benefit of my constituents. Even if I had any doubts, which I have not, I would try to legislate for the benefit of my constituency. In this case we will do no wrong we will be inflicting no wrong upon any one.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President. We are a little differently situated from any time in my recollection of the history of legislation in Indiana. If we were situated as we were two years ago, there would be no question in my mind at all, for our right to legislate at that time had ceased; we had no power whatever. It is quite different now. We have a body here composed of thirty or forty members in attendance from day to day, and the question arises, can we pass bills that originated in the other branch of the General Assembly when they had a full body there? Can we legislate here when they have no quorum there? I Senators will look back to 1863 they will find that three-fourths of the laws passed were signed by the Governor when there was no quorum in the House of Representatives. I am aware that Senators will say they were absent without leave, but they had no quorum for twelve days before the close of the session, and this body did take up bills and pass them that had passed there in accordance with the State Constitution. I will read one of them. It was a bill to raise revenue for 1863 and 1864. It was taken up and passed on the 16th of March. It passed the House of Representatives on the very day before they broke a quorum and went off to Madison. It was passed on the 6th of March and received the signature of the Governor and become the law of the land.
Now what is our duty? What is the duty of each House? The Constitution tells us very plain what our duty is; "two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may meet, adjourn from day to day, and compell the attendance of absent members." This is one provision, sir, but what is our duty in regard to the passage of bills, "a majority of all the members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution; and all bills and joint resolutions so passed shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective Houses." Notwithstanding which the President said a few days ago, that he would not sign any bills hereafter, I think it is imperative upon him.
The LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (interposing.) I did that because I believe the doctrine the Senator himself declared, that the existonce of the General Assembly terminated on the 23rd instant, by the resignation of 34 members.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As far as legislation between the two branches are concerned no one will contend against the decision of the chair in that respect. But, sir, when that House passes a bill with a fair majority, two-thirds being there and 51 members having voted for it, and that fact being certified here by the Clerk of the House, and we take it and pass it, two-thirds of this body being present and 26 members voting for it, sir, where is the President's authority for refusing to sign it? Now, sir, I take it that we have just as good a right to pass any bill coming from the House legally passed as we have to pass a bill at any time when the House was not in session, or was without a quorum. The House may fail to be in session on a day we pass a bill, and you will say there was no House because it was not in session. It was discovered on the 25th of February, 1863, that there was no quorum in the House, yet we went on to pass bills originating in the House, which came to this body from them to the close of the session. They were sent to the Governor and approved by him and become laws. They were approved March 2, March 7, March 9, March 11, and so on.
Mr. HOOPER. Will the Senator allow me to suggest a question. Do you suppose we can pass a bill except one which has already passed the House?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir, I do not. No bill that has not come to us prior to the resignations have we any right to pass, but any bill the House of Representatives passed in the manner which I read in the constitution we have the power to pass here to day, sir, or any other day, it we have votes enough or it, unless we have a quorum broke in this body. If gentlemen had carried out to the letter the examples set two years ago, it would not be in our power, but they have only done half of it. If they want to terminate legislation entirely, let them vacate 17 seats in this body, that will do it effectually.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I do not agree with the Senator who has just taken his seat, and I am sorry I can not agree with him, because he is a Senator for whose opinion upon parliamentary and constitutional law I have great respect, and his long experience in the General Assembly of the State entitles his opinions to large considerations and weight. But at the same time on this occasion the Senator is mistaken. He says there is clearly power for the Senate to take up bills upon our table which have been passed by the House of Representative and pass them. I do not think there is any such power, and I say now, I shall not vote for any such course of proceeding, simply because I do not think it can be warranted by the Constitution.
The case the Senator puts to sustain his view is not a case in point. He says that in 1863, after thirty odd members of the House of Representatives left their seats, the Sen- page: 382[View Page 382] ate passed bills that had been previously passed the House of Representatives, and then the Governor of the State signed those bills, and they became laws. That is all true, sir, and it was right and proper, in my judgment, that it should have bean done thus. The mistake the Senator makes is simply this, that in 1863 the House of Representatives did not lose its constitutional power to perform legislative business, but by a revolutionary action of a portion of the members of that House for the time being its constitutional power for legislative purposes was suspended, but the House did not lose its constitutional character as a House of Representatives. The difference is this: If the thirty-four members of the House instead of resigning the other day had gone home either with leave or without leave, it still would have been a House of Representatives under the constitution and laws of the State of Indiana, and because part of the members thereof not being in their places and performing their duties the legislative action of the House or the time being would be suspended, and the legislative existence of this General Assembly, under the constitution, would not have been destroyed; but what is the case now, sir ? Members of the House have not simply gone away; they have resigned, and there is no power under the constitution and laws of the State to prevent that resignation ; and the effect of that resignation is to destroy the constitutional existence of that body; and without the constitutional existence of that body there is no General Assembly in the State of Indiana with power to perform legislative business.
The Constitution says: "The legislative authority of this State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is the General Assembly of the State of Indiana--a Senate and House of Representatives. The Constitution provides that the Senate shall not exceed fifty members, and the House of Representatives shall not exceed one hundred members, and the law made in pursuance thereof, declares that the House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred members, and the Senate shall consist of fifty members. Then there can be no House of Representatives, sir, unless the House of Representatives is of such a number--one hundred--as the Constitution says shall be the number.
Mr. LASSELLE (interposing) I would call the attention of the Senator to the fact that the Constitution does not say that the number shall be 100.
Mr. BROWN. But the laws of the State of Indiana passed in pursuance thereof fixes the number of each House. Let me say to the able and distinguished lawyer over the way that this Constitutional provision confers upon General Assembly the discretion of saying of what number the Senate and House of Representatives shall consist, so it does not go beyond 50 and 100.
Again the Constitution further provides that "no law shall be passed the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority except as provided in this Constitution." It is the General Assembly of the State of Indiana whose authority puts into effect every law, and if you pass a bill through the Senate which has passed tho House of Representatives, there is no General Assembly to stand behind that bill to put it into effect and operation.
Mr. LASSELLE. Do you take the ground that the House of Representatives consists of 100 members?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
Mr. LASSELLE. Suppose one member dies, can the others act on as a Legislature?
Mr. BROWN. Of course they can. Of course they can, simply because the Constitution provides that two thirds of one hundred may do legislative business.
Mr. LASSELLE. I did not put the question properly. It should be: If one dies, does that destroy the existence of the body?
Mr. BROWN. No, sir, it does not.
Mr. LASSELLE. If thirty-four?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, it does, simply because the constitution says that nothing less than two-thirds can perform the functions of the body. We will go on with this question of adjournment for a moment. Section 10 of article 4 of the constitution says: "But neither House shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days, nor to any place other than that in which it may be sitting." Now, upon this section of the constitution, I am told by some persons, there is no power under the constitution to adjourn this Assembly sine die until next Monday, the day on which the constitution says the Assembly shall close its existence. That construction of this sentence I can not and will not support. What this section of the Constitution means is this,that neither House without the consent of the ether shall adjourn for more than three days when there is to be a reassembling of that House during the existing session of the General Assembly. The question of the adjournment contained in this section of the Constitution refers to an adjournment upon which there is to be a continuation of the General Assembly during that session, and has no reference whatever to the final adjournment of that body.
Then I come to the next section which is also brought in, "two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may meet and adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members." Now, some gentlemen hold, that the House of Representatives can't adjourn for three days, but it must meet from day to day and adjourn, because it must meet to compel the attendance of absent members. Nothing can be more inconsistent in my judgment with the plain intention and meaning of this Constitution. This Constitution does not provide that there can be no other adjournment what this Constitution means is this: that when there are a number of members absent, whether it reduced the number below two-thirds or not, it has the power to adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance page: 383[View Page 383] of the absentees; but in the House of Representatives there are no absentees which you can compel the attendance of. Then this section of the Constitution does not meet the case. Neither of these sections of the Constitution refer to the final adjournment of the body.
The LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. I thought the appeal of the Senato would take precedence to a motion to adjourn to a day certain, but on referring to the rules I find that a motion to adjourn and a motion to fix a day to which the house shall adjourn shall always be in order.
Mr. GREEN. Then you hold that the resolution to adjourn is always in order?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Yes, sir. The resolution of the Senator from Vigo (Mr. Scott) is in order.
Mr. BROWN. I move to amend the resolution by providing that the Senate adjourn sine die.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Send up your amendment in writing.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise to a point of order, that the Senator's amendment is not in order. The motion to adjourn to a day certain should take precedence. A motion to adjourn absolutely and finally can not come in ahead.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I am not clear about that, and I am not clear that the amendment is in order, and I believe I will role it to be in order now.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose--
The LIEUTEEANT GOVERNOR (interrupting.) It is an amendmfnt, any how, and the questien of order should come up after it is read. I am satisfied that this House, under the constitution, may adjourn sine die, if it is disposed to do so. We have it on our journals that there is no House to consent to a concurrent resolution, even if one be required. But without determining that question, we have indubitable evidence that there is no House to consent; therefore, if the Senate chooses to adjourn, I will rule that it is in order to offer an amendment of that sort to the resolution.
Amend by striking out the word "when" and all after the word "adjourn" and insert in lieu the words "sine die," so that it will read: Resolved that the Senate adjourn sine die.
The yeas and nays being demanded.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR said: As many Senators as favor the substitute offered by the Senator from Jackson will say "aye" as their names are called, and as many as are of the contrary opinion will say "no" as their names are called.
The vote resulted as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Beggs, Brown, Carnahan, Case, Caven, Collett, Denbo, Elliott, Francisco, Glessner, Gray, Green, Henderson, Hooper, Hubbard, Martindale, Miller. Robinson, Rosebrough, Steele, Straud, Taylor, Wadge, and Mr. Wood--27
NAYS--Messrs. Alsop, Bradley, Dittemore, Fuller, Gregg, Johnson, Lasselle, Morgan, Scott, Williams--10.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The yeas are 27, nays 10. So the resolution prevails and I will declare the Senate of the 47th General Assembly adjourned sine die.
