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.
