NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were introduced, read the first time, and passed to the second reading:
By Mr. Ryan [H. R. 120]: Authorizing the employment of two clerks on the Joint Committee on Revision of the Laws. [To be appointed by the Chairman of said Committee, and receive the same per diem as clerks on other Committees.]
On motion by Mr. Ryan the Constitutional rule was suspended, the bill read three times under the dispensation and passed the House by yeas,--; nays,--.
By Mr. Johnson [H. R. 121]: To prevent railroad accidents.
By Mr. Wright [H. R. 122]: Repealing so much of Section 8 of the act approved March 14, 1877, prescribing certain duties and powers of County Commissioners, Township Trustees, City Councils and Trustees of towns in reference to elections. Also, prescribing certain powers and duties of Inspectors and Judges of Elections and penalties for frauds in the performance of their official duties, and to prevent illegal and fraudulent voting.
By Mr. Carr [H. R. 123]: To legalize an election held in '78, '79 and '80, in the town of Brookstown, White County, Indiana.
By Mr. Kenner [H. R. 124]: In relation and to the sale of personal property of infants, and providing for disaffirming such sales in certain cases.
By Mr. Cooper [H. R. 125]: To prevent fraud in elections and other matters connected therewith.
By Mr. Faucher [H. R. 126]: To require all railroads running into and through the State of Indiana to remove and destroy all rubbish and other combustible materials that may accumulate on their right of way, and prescribing penalties for violation thereof. (They shall, between the 1st of August and October of each year, cause the weeds, etc., on the right of way and all other combustible materials that may accumulate to be destroyed and removed.
On motion by Mr. Linkley, an order was adopted under which a great number of temperance petitions were presented by many members, which were severally referred to the Committee on that subject, without reading
page: 56[View Page 56]On motion by Mr. Carter, his bill [H. R. 27] providing for the submission of legal questions by the General Assembly, or either House thereof, to the Supreme Court for its decision, was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. Floyd--It seems to be that to obtain just what the opinion of Supreme Judges may be on future legislation proceeds on the assumption that the Legislature is not wholly competent to enact laws in the interest of the people, because they are not sufficiently informed as to the constitutionality of the laws proposed to be enacted. We come here as representatives of the people to enact such laws as are required by the State. The tendency is that the Supreme Judges may shape legislation by previous decision if such a bill as the one put forward should become the law of the land.
Mr Kenner--The Constitution of the State of Indiana says te Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in Circuit Courts, and in such inferior Courts as the General Assembly may establish. I take it that that means original jurisdiction in a case where there are two sides to it; where there is a plaintiff and defendant, that is jurisdiction. I know the State of Maine has a law similar to this, but what their Constitution provides for I ca not say. It is possible that we are passing here an unconstitutional measure. We ought to go slow. I dare say, no Supreme Court will fly into the face of the will of the people. We ought to go to work and do our duty. The people from my County demand it from me, that those Amendments to the Constitution of the State of indiana be passed, and , as one of the advantages to be derived therefrom, stop municipal corporations from going into debt to any extent they please. The people want these amendments proposed to the Constitutions, and I do not want this bill to stop the progress of the bill which will give the people a chance to vote on them again.
Mr. Sinclair--I think it will be a fair and square admission that we do not know what we are about. I take it that there will be a bias in the Supreme Court against a certain proposition that may be submitted to it if this bill passes as it is already involved here. We are supposed to be independent and know what we are talking about. I take it that this bill is objectional in every shape and manner, and I hope gentlemen will not urge its passage.
Mr. Cauthorne--I regard the bill as in violation of the Constitution of the State. The theory is the Government is divided into three branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. It is the province of the Legislature to make laws and to say what shall be law, and the Judicial to construe the laws that have been made, but it is not the province of the Judicial to help make the laws. I think we have had too much Judicial in this State, and do not think we ought to apply to the Supreme Court at all to know what laws we can pass. I am opposed to going ot the Supreme Court and asking them whether we can pass this law or that law. I do not think it necessary, so far as the Constitutional amendment is concerned. It is an incumbent duty imposed upon the Legislature, and is not satisfied until it performs its duty completely. Therefore, I move that this bill be indefinitely postponed.
This motion was rejected--yeas, 46; nays, 51.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
