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.
