THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
Mr. SPANN called up the special order, being the resolution offered by Mr. Van Vorhis on the 12th inst., [see pp. 49, 50 and 76 of the Brevier Reports] instructing the Judiciary Committee to report if any amendment or amendments to the Constitution of this State were proposed by the last General Assembly and referred to this; with a majority report of said Committee, signed by five members, declaring there is nothing on the journals to show that either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the last General Assembly referred or intended to refer any proposition to amend the Constitution of this General Assembly.
The minority report, signed by two members, states: We do not find that said resolutions were spread at length upon the journals of the General Assembly, nor that they were, in words, referred to this General Assembly. We do find that they are in the same condition as resolutions heretofore adopted and agreed to as amendments to the Constitution of Indiana, which were agreed to by a succeeding majority of the electors of the State of Indiana, and declared by the Governor of the State to have been duly adopted as a part of the Constitution of Indiana. We, therefore, find and report to the Senate that the provisions of Section 1, Article 16, of the Constitution of Indiana have been substantially complied with, and that said several joint resolutions above set forth are duly and legally before this General Assembly for its action thereon.
The question being on concurrence in the minority report-
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Henry in the Chair) for the consideration of these reports.
Mr. BUNDY moved that the Committee recommend that the Senate concur in the minority report of the Committee.
Mr. BELL moved that the Committee recommend the Senate concur in the majority report.
Mr. BUNDY did not propose to discuss all the questions that arise on this subject, but to give a few reasons why the report of the minority of the Judiciary Committee should be concurred in. He conceded if the words, "entered on the journals," as used in the Constitution, mean "spread at length", then so much of the requirement of the Constitution was omitted. Nor were words entered on the journals referring such amendments to this General Assembly. The controversy arises whether this renders it possible for this General Assembly to pass upon these amendments. All Governments are founded upon the surrender of some natural rights, and no presumption should arise as to the intention to use the words of the Constitution in the strictest sense. In some cases the language of the Constitution must be literally construed without conflicting with the wishes of a majority of the people. It is said Constitutional provisions should stand exactly as written, but in nearly every State Courts have been and are now constructing Constitutions as are thought best to carry out the spirit of the instrument. It is the intent of the law that it is to be inferred, and what better manner is there to find this out than by the expressions and views stated by the law makers at the time of the enactment of the law? In the Constitutional debates not one word is recorded about spreading proposed Constitutional amendments on the journals of each House, and it is fair to presume it was considered as a mere matter of form. He read a lengthy argument, and in support of his position read from numerous judicial decisions.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the Committee took a recess till 2 o'clock.
