HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, Jan. 26,1883-10 a. m.The House was opened with prayer by Rev. Rufus D Black.
On motion by Mr. SHIVELY the reading of the Clerk's minutes of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.
A RECESS TILL MONDAY.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, moved that when the House adjourn to-day it be until 2 o'clock Monday.
Mr. WILEY moved to amend by saying 10 o'clock on Monday. The yeas and nays being demanded the vote resulted yeas, 44; nays, 49; so the motion to amend was rejected.
Mr. HOWLAND made an ineffectual motion to amend by saying until 10 o'clock to-morrow.
The question being on the original motion, the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. Jewett and Mr. Wilson, of Kosciusko, and being ordered and taken, resulted yeas. [?]5; nays, 27.
So the House agreed to adjourn from to-day till Monday at 2 p, m.
THE LATE H C. MEREDITH.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for the hour, the resolution of respect on the death of the Hon. Henry C. Meredith, late Representative, from Wayne County.
On motion by Mr. MERING the consideration of the resolution was deferred until Tuesday, January 30, at 3 p m.
A NEW JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Mr. BRYANT, by consent, introduced a bill [H. B. 360] to define the Twentieth and creating the Forty-third Judicial Circuit, which, was passed the second reading.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,
On motion by Mr. JEWETT the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. Jewett in the Chair), and resumed the consideration of the three reports from the Judiciary Committee on the question as to whether the proposed Constitutional amendments were properly referred to this General Assembly.
Mr. STEWART said he did not intend to detain the House at any length by discussing the question under consideration. As a member of the Committee it will be expected that I say something on the question. It has been under discussion by members on this floor and by the people of the State for many months. As Representatives we are each to discharge our duty in this matter in the light in which we may discern the question of the legality of the pending amendments and believing as I do that every member of this House has made up bis mind on the question, and that the conviction Is firmly fixed, I do not feel called upon to debate the question at length. In my opinion, if the Senate had on yesterday reached a final vote and the House had done the same the result would not have been any different from what it will be when the final vote is taken. I can better serve my constituents by voting correctly on this question than by consuming the valuable time of the House in useless debate. It is a question, however, that each member must settle for himself, and I will patiently hear any member who feels called upon to express himself in regard to the legality of the pending amendments. The people are much more interested in how we shall vote than they are in what we shall say before we vote. That certain amendments to the Constitution were proposed and received a majority of the votes of members elected to each of the two Houses of the last General Assembly; of this there is no doubt, and that an exact copy of these amendments can be procured there is no doubt. I think the proper entery has been made on the journal. The object of entering the resolutions on the journal in that they may be identified. There is no pretense such that the identical resolution can be offered to the General Assembly. The public is as well informed of the identity of these resolutions as though they had been entered in on the journals with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. It is not dangerous to submit any question to the people. In this matter we enact no law, we simply prepare the way for the legal voters of the State to determine whether or not they desire certain amendments to the Constitution. I believe, as a lawyer, that the amendments can be legally submitted to the people, and of right ought to be so submitted.
Mr. MOODY said: This is a deliberative body. It is not a caucus nor a political Convention It exercises the highest power and occupies the most responsible position that it is possible to confer upon man. It is one of the results of a great experiment that was begun upon this continent over a century ago, under circumstances that astonished the civilized world. We stand here to-day as a great inquest upon every fundamental element which carried into practice gave us this Government. We have no governments in this country except the law. We have no law except that made under prescribed forms. The first prescribed form is the Constitution, and our Constitution is the result of the deliberative judgment of the representatives of the people assembled in Convention over fifty years ago. Thirty years ago a Convention was called and gave us our present Constitution. The first obligation taken at the bar of this House by every member thereto is to support the Constitution. This support means more than tacit assent thereto. It means more than mere page: 117[View Page 117] obedience. It implies sacred duty. And all attempts to avoid or evade any of its provisions should be condemned. The Democratic party, in its last Convention, declared in favor of the submission of the proposed amendments in accordance with the provision of the Constitution for its owe amendment. One of these provisions is that the proposed amendment shall be entered upon the journals of the two Houses. I do not propose to inquire at any great length into the reasons for this provision They are manifest as precaution against any mistake and fraud. Bun it is enough for me that there is such a requirement in the constitution which I have taken, in common with other members of the House, an oath to support. Has this requirement of the Constitution been complied with? Is is found upon examination that none of the proposed amendments have been entered on the journals of either House. There is a well-known and recognized distinction in the proceedings all Judicial, Legislative and deliberative bodies between filing, noting and entering.
The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again at 2 o'clock.
The report was concurred in by the House.
The House took a recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House reassembled at 2 o'clock, and immediately resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole [Mr. Jewett in the chair].
Mr. MOODY (continuing his speech) said: The present Constitution requires that "if such proposed amendment be agreed to, it shall be entered upon the journal." Looking over the journals, the proposed amendments are not to be found there. No entry of them is to be found. The fact that they are not to be found there entered is prima facie evidence that they were not agreed to. The only evidence of their passage provided for-namely, their entry on the journal-is not found. Mr. Moody continued at some length, citing authorities, reading from the Constitution, etc.
Mr. WILEY said: I have no desire in the decision of this question other than to do my duty under the Constitution as I understand it and voice the will of the people, whose servant I am. The question under consideration is not free from doubt. If it were free from doubt we would not be discussing it. It seems to me that my duty is marked out very plain. I would be the last person who would undertake to amend or change the original law of the land did I believe that the essential steps were not constitutionally taken. In a Government like ours the people are the arbiters of all power. I am glad that I live in a country where the people can speak and the voice of the people shall be the sovereign law. The question is: Are there any amendments which were proposed in the last General Assembly and presented to this General Assembly for our consideration? I will admit that different tribunals in different States have made different decisions on questions similar to the one we are now discussing. The case in Iowa which that Supreme Court recently decided, was not similar to that in Indiana. The journals of the two Houses of the Iowa Legislature do not show that the amendments passed the two Houses of one General Assembly, and hence the Courts held that the next General Assembly could not assume jurisdiction over the same. If that was the case in Indiana, it would be very different with us. But the journals of the two Houses of the Fifty-second General Assembly show that the amendments did not pass the two Houses two years ago. This was not the case in Iowa, and hence the Court held that the subsequent Legislature could not take jurisdiction of the question. The journal is only to keep a record of the action of the House. No gentleman will attempt to say that all the proceedings must be spread at length upon the journals. There is another fact. Bills and resolutions must be numbered; no two bills or resolutions can have the same number. I want to say to the gentlemen here to-day that every bill and resolution passed two years ago can be traced by any member of this HOuse, and there is no doubt about it. I find by referring to the journal that four joint resolutions were passed by the last General Assembly. In the Senate there were two, and in the House I find that on page 1,016 of the journal the gentleman from Fayette [Mr. Huston] introduced House joint resolution number seven. I find that by tracing it through the journal that it was properly acted upon by the House, and that the Clerk informed the Senate of the passage of the resolution. I find by reference to the Senate journal it was reported to the Senate, and that it passed that body, receiving a majority of the votes of the members; that it was returned to this House, where it received a majority of the votes of the members of this House on its final passage, and that the same was properly signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. I turn to the published acts of the Assembly of 1881, and I find there certain laws and certain joint resolutions that were agreed to by that General Assembly and among them is House joint resolution number seven. M. W. continued at some length.
Mr. Speaker BYNUM said: I trust that the members of this House will pardon me for violating those rules which under proper consideration might have required me to remain silent. I do not know that I would have violated those rules had it not been that the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, there by giving me an opportunity to enter upon the discussion of this question. I do not know that I shall throw any light upon this question. It has been discussed in its various phases until it has been worn threadbare. It is claimed that these amendments were properly pressed and properly referred to this General Assembly. I can say with the gentleman from Benton, Mr. Wiley, that there are amendments for and against this proposition. Now, I apprehend that it makes no difference whether an amendment is proposed by a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution or in some other manner. I care not what you call it, whether you call it a bill, joint resolution or what not, it must come under the provisions of the Constitution, Article 16, Sections 1 and 2.
What led to the formation of the Constitution of 1852? Under the Constitution of 1816 there was no clause providing for its own amendment. And members well know that this provision was the most important that was proposed in that Convention. Several propositions were proposed, but it was decided that this was the safest manner proposed for the amendment of the Constitution. The father of that provision was Robert Dale Owe[n?] who was one of the most energetic and active members of the Convention. I am not here to dispute the right of the people to change their form of government, but I am here to say the people of a sovereign State have no right to change their organic law except in the manner laid down in the Constitution. The question is simply narrowed down as to how the provisions of the Constitution are construed. Gentlemen do not claim that they found the resolution itself on the journal, but they found a description of a resolution corresponding in number to the resolution No. 7 . The word "entered" means to go into. We have heard that this question has been passed upon by two Governors; that it was passed upon in the case of the Wabash and Erie Canal, and we all respect the decisions of these Governors, but their decisions are of little weight in comparison with the decisions of the Supreme Court of two States. Their decisions are not binding upon this Legislature. In order to fin d decisions that are binding we should go page: 118[View Page 118] to the decisions of the Supreme Courts of our country. The Constitution requires amendments proposed to it to be entered upon the journals of each House, and it requires no lawyer, it requires no professor, to understand what that plain and simple provision means. Gentlemen, after admitting that the letter of the Constitution has not been complied with, contend that it has been complied with in spirit. It is not in the power of any Legislature to provide any other means to amend their Constitution than the means provided in the Constitution itself. Our Constitution is our Government; outside of the Constitution we have no Government. Gentlemen say they have traced this prohibitory amendment resolution through the several stages of legislation to its final passage, but can any one take the journals of the two Houses and tell what is embodied in that resolution? No one will attempt to do it. Mr. B. read from the Constitution and from numerous judicial decisions. When he had concluded-
On motion by Mr. Shively, the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again at 2 o'clock Monday.
Then the House adjourned, under an older adopted this forenoon, till-Monday at 2 o'clock p. m.
