THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME TWENTY-ONE.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, January 26, 1883-10 a. m.The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR commanded order and attention while prayer was offered by Rev. W. H. Hay.
On motion by Mr. HUTCHINSON, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND REMONSTRANCES
Petitions praying for a submission of the Constitutional prohibition amendment at a special election were presented and referred to the Temperance Committee without reading by Messrs. Brown, Lockridge, Mclntosh two, Benz five, five, Davidson and Henry five petitions.
Mr. McINTOSH presented a petition from his District against, changing the Judicial Circuit.
Mr. RISTINE presented a petition in favor of his Montgomery County Court. These petitions were referred to the appropriate Committees.
Numerous reports from Committees were submitted and placed on the files for future action.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for mis hour-10:30 o'clock-being the consideration of the resolution and Committee reports thereon concerning the status of the proposed prohibition amendment to the Constitution, by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.
The Senate thereupon resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole [Mr. Henry in the Chair] and proceeded with the discussion.
Mr. SMITH, of Delaware, said: I do not propose to make an extended legal argument as to whether the amendments are properly before us or not; that has been done by others. Nor do I propose in this discussion to make an exhaustive research among the laws and decisions of Iowa and Kansas, or any other States, to learn what we should do in the amendment of our Constitution. Nor do I propose to ask foreign authorities to determine for us whether the amendments are properly before this Legislature or not. We are not governed by me laws and customs of those States They settle their Constitutional questions in accordance with their awn rules and precedents. We should do the same. Their Constitutions and requirements for amendments are different from ours, and those constructions that would be applicable and appropriate to them would not be to us. We can get all the information that is necessary in the settlement of this vexed question by applying to our Court decisions and Legislative records. Although our Supreme Court has never rendered an opinion directly defining what is necessary in a Constitutional record, yet its decision in 30 Indiana and other cases, by implication, gives to the pending amendments all she record that is essential for them to have. There is not a decision of a Court or a law anywhere in our State that would invalidate them. There is not an amendment to the Constitution that has not the same record, declared deficient and fatal in the present amendments by Democratic Senators, and yet that they are all a legal part of the Constitution has never been questioned. Our Supreme Court has never been applied to by importunate creditors, who imagined they had been wronged by the adoption of these various amendments, to declare them void. The State has moved quietly along in her simple grandeur for thirty years, wholly unconscious of this legislative storm that threatens to dismantle her I ask Democratic Senators to pause and consider well the step they are taking, for bad precedents are fixed curses. In addition to the decision of the Supreme Court, we have the journals of the two Houses, both attesting to the the passage of the joint resolution. In addition to that we have it in its enrolled form, signed by the officers of the two Houses and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, the depository of the laws of the State, by the Governor It does seem to me, from the above facts, which have always been regarded as sufficient, that the object of the Constitution in having the proceedings spread upon the journals is fully met.
Mr. MAY preferred to vote against the amendments on their passage, thus reflecting the views of his people. But it happens a question of jurisdiction has arisen-a legal proposition that must be solved by legal rules and legal practice. He could not come to the conclusion that these amendments are properly before this General Assembly. No lawyer will say we should go out- side of the Constitution [Article 16, Sections 1 and page: 115[View Page 115] 2] to ascertain the only way in which amendments to that instrument can be considered by the General Assembly. It is as plain to a man of common sense as the noon-day sun. Much has been said about outside authorities, but he defied any one to show any decision of any Court in Indiana on the two sections of the article referred to. Then if no authority of the Supreme Court cm be found construing those sections, what next should be done? It is the custom of lawyers to go to sister States for next best authority. It is not necessary to go far to find a decision exactly on this point-there is a recent one in the State of Iowa which covers the whole point.
Mr. DUNCAN regarded this as a question of purely Constitutional law, and can not and should not be made a proper subject of party caucus. No caucus can bind his judgment and conscience up in a subject of Constitutional law. The Senator from Wayne (Mr. Foulke) dropped into a political threat unworthy the dignified legal argument he made. The Constitution is paramount to the Legislature, and its acts must be controlled by that instrument. The journals of the two Houses are made the Constitutional depository for proposed amendments to the Constitution clearly contemplating if a proposed amendment fail that only a brief entry need be made, but if agreed to it must be entered with the yeas and nays thereon and referred to the next General Assembly. The rule of construction of stymies should also apply here. The ratification of the amendment now under consideration would prove a nullity and be overthrown by the Courts. Viewing it as a partisan, its submission at the general election next year would prove beneficial to the party with which he acted: but being sworn to support the sixteenth article as well as the entire instrument, he could not conscientiously favor the minority report. He read from manuscript, and when he concluded-
On motion by Mr. BELL the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at l:45 o'clock.
The Senate concurred in the report of the Committee.
The Senate then adjourned till 1:45 o'clock, p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called the Senate to order.
On motion by Mr. BELL the Senate resumed its sittings as in Committee of the Whole [Mr. Henry in the Chair.]
Mr. SAYRE believed this to be the first time in the history of the Democracy of Indiana when they have been driven to Republican Iowa for succor, and the only time when Republicans are compelled to cite almost entirely Democratic authority and Democratic precedents in favor of the adoption of the minority report. He was understood to say that in construing the Constitution, it is not always to be done according to the letter. Every lawyer who reads the Constitution for himself does so by the aid of certain rules of construction, because of the infirmity of human nature and our language, which become to him part and parcel of the Constitution itself. The spirit of the instrument itself is to be determined by many circumstances. In this case, if the word "entered" does not mean to spread at length upon the journal, then it is the duty of every Senator, if he can find in the dictionary or in the common acceptation of the meaning of the word, any meaning that will permit another action for the purpose of accomplishing this result, it is his sworn duty lo give it that meaning and let the progress of these amendments go on. Another rule which ought to be applied in determining questions of this character is to look at precedents. The Wabash and Erie Canal precedent is one that ought to be binding upon the consciences and oaths of members of this General Assembly. Referring to the plea of strict constructionists, he declared that no journals of any General Assembly have ever yet been published according to the strict construction of the Constitutional provision, that "each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same."
Mr VAN VORHIS said: I should not have troubled this Committee with my views had I not believed it robe a duty The burden imposed by my convictions of duty is not a Lght one, and the road it compels me to travel is not likely to lead to preferment. It is not always easy to sink every personal consideration, and in the face of misconception, misrepresentation and personal abuse and in opposition to the wishes of many party and personal friends be guided alone by convictions of right. The most difficult thing to answer is the sneer of those who effect contempt for anything like convictions, and who desiring to banish all moral questions from the political arena, do not trouble themselves to inquire whether even ordinary moral conduct remains. So far as I know, with one exception I urn, alone in my party on this floor in the position I have taken on this question. But, sir, if my late colleague [Mr. Chapman] had been permitted to remain with us, I know where he would have stood with a courage that followed duty in the face of fire and flame and leaden storms into the very jaws of death. He would not have been dismayed by party clamor, but would have stood for what he believed to be right though he stood alone. Among the last words he addressed to the public upon this subject were these:
"Every member is entitled to exercise the divine attribute of conscience, and has a right, and it is his duty, not to follow any instructions from his constituents which, in his judgment, require him to disregard the Constitution."
Is there any man on this floor who in sober thoughtfulness, dare face his own conscience and say he was not right? The meaning of the word instruct, as taken from Webster, is "to communicate knowledge to, to teach; to form by precept; to educate; to inform " The considerations mentioned (referring to arguments preceding) and this meaning of the word ought to be sufficient, to convince any thoughtful man that no such thing as "authoritative instructions," "mandates issued," was ever dreamed of by the Convention when Section 76 of the Bill of Rights was adopted.
The fact is, we stand face to face with a duty imposed upon us by the Constitution, and individual member must, from necessity, decide for himself the bounds of that duty. There is no other tribunal to which he can apply except his own judgment. The highest and only instructions of which I have any knowledge is the Constitution; and that Constitution, according to the convictions of my best judgment, makes it my duty to decide according to the best light I have the questions before us.
I have received no other instructions, and if I had they could not absolve me from my duty to obey the Constitution.
This is my conclusion, and I shall act in accordance with it when called upon to vote upon the question contained in these reports, or any one or all the proposed amendments if the judgment of this Committee and the Senate shall see that they are now properly before the this General Assembly.
In discussing this resolution I desire to say that I do so as one most earnestly interested in the temperance cause. I protest against any argument that assumes that opposition in this resolution means opposition to temperance reform.
I know, sir there are persons who, believing no way to exist by which temperance reform can be brought about except the method proposed in this resolution, do not seem to have toleration sufficient to en able them to conceive how any man can be opposed, to it and be sincere, and they are page: 116[View Page 116] ready at once to denounce anyone who doubts the practical wisdom of this proposed amendment as dishonest. And the man who has the misfortune to fall under the ban of their condemnation may expect to have his reputation assailed, no matter what it may have been before. He will have offensive names applied to him and it will be hinted, if it is not proudly asserted, that his opposition is due to the fact that he is himself a slave to the drink habit.
The Senator from Vigo and myself are the only members of the Republican side of the Senate who voted against this resolution in the last Senate. I do not know how it has been with the Senator, but I have had some very unpleasant things said to me and about me on account of that vote and subsequent expressions of my views, by a few people who somehow have not been able to realize that it is within the bounds of possibility that their ideas of the proper method of furthering the interests of temperance reform may not correct.
There are some people who, from the very poverty of their ideas, must answer an argument by misrepresentation, personal abuse or slander, or say nothing at all. Such individuals are prone to attach themselves to any moral reform that has attracted public attention. They try, by unusual zeal, to put themselves in the lead. They are to be known by the vehemence with which they denounce any one who differs from them in regard to methods; and in this they never distinguish between friend and foe.
They are zealous, but not "according to knowledge;" sincere, but mistake sincerity for wisdom; honest, maybe, but if so belonging to that class of whom Tupper says:
Much of unconscious evil is done
By the honest wrestler for
truth.
On motion by Mr. GRAHAM the Committee arose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again Monday at 2 o'clock, p.m.
The report was concurred in by the Senate.
The Senate adjourned till Monday at half past 10 o'clock.
