THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for this hour-11 o'clock-being the consideration of the proposed Constitutional page: 106[View Page 106] amendment resolution, and the majority and minority reports from the Judiciary Committee thereon, in the Committees of the Whole, and thereupon he gave place to the Chairman, Mr. Henry, who stated the question to be on the motion pending at the adjournment yesterday to concur in the majority report.
Mr. FOULKE (continuing his speech, begun yesterday afternoon) regretted the consumption of so large an amount of time in his argument of this question, but it is to be presumed that members of the Senate are trying so to do their duty, and their duty is to decide this case according to the Constitution and the law. No party pledges were made in consideration of this defect, the amendments not being found in the Legislative journals, and the question whether or not this General Assembly is to consider the amendments was not sprung. A large number of this body not being members of the legal profession, it seems right to present fully the legal aspect of this case. He insisted wherever the means of identification are complied with that is all the law requires. The requirement that the amendment be entered on the records in directory only and not imperative. But even if imperative it has been sufficiently complied with. It has been said that two of the resolutions passed by the last General Assembly are concurrent and not joint resolutions. The title says they are joint resolutions, but the style indicates they are concurrent. In the Brevier Reports an examination showed [he had not examined the journals] that the same course was taken with them as with bills. They were read three times and passed by a yea and nay vote. And so it would seem they can properly be construed as Joint resolutions. If they are concurrent resolutions they are not properly before us, but if from the mode of procedure they can be considered as joint resolutions they have been properly authenticated and they properly before us. If in our duty to submit these amendments to the people They are before us and we have no right to stifle the popular voice upon a mere technical plea. He tried to discuss the question as free as possible from all political bias, and was extremely glad to find his convictions on the legal aspect of the case agreed with his convictions as a man. It is presumed all will try to pass upon this question as free as possible from party affiliations. If gentlemen on the other side feel themselves bound by the dictates of party let them remember a course that shall stifle the voice of the people unless it is imperatively demanded by the Constitution, will read upon the persons and the party attempting it.
We are acting as a Court in this matter-a Court of exclusive jurisdiction-and a decision has heretofore been rendered in a precisely similar case. He bad gone over the record of proceedings in the Wabash and Erie Canal amendment question pretty fully and found that the amendment was referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which the present Senator from Jackson (Mr. Brown) was a member. The Judiciary Committee reported favorably on the amendment and the General Assembly adopted it with a knowledge on the part of every member just what the law was. But the Senator from Jackson said the other day it was adopted without considering this point. That could hardly be excusable, after Governor Baker had called attention, to it in his message to that body. But the record shows the point was considered in the Judiciary Committee, considered on the floor of the Senate and considered by the Senator from Jackson [Reread some remarks made by that Senator as printed in volume XIII. of the Brevier Legislative Reports, p. 52.] So Senator from Jackson would indicate that if the original resolutions were dragged from the Secretary, of State's office and brought here, that would satisfy the necessary conditions of identification. The question is which Senator from. Jackson shall we follow the Senator from Jackson in regard to the Wabash and Erie Canal or the Senator from Jackson in regard to these Constitutional amendments?
Mr. BROWN (interposing): The Senator from Jackson was a very young man when he was a Senator on the Wabash and Erie canal. [Laughter ] And another infirmity the Senator from Jackson then suffered was that he was outside of the Democratic camp, and just then was among you fellows. [Renewed laughter.]
Mr. FOULKE continued his remarks but a few moments longer. When he had concluded.
On motion by Mr. BROWN the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 2 o'clock.
The report was concurred in by the Senate.
