HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, Jan. 29, 1883-2 p. m.The SPEAKER commanded order, and announced prayer by Rev. Mr. Pellet, of the California Street M. E. Church.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
By Mr McCLELLAND [H. R. 301] an act denning the Thirty-first and Thirty-ninth Circuit. It passed to a second reading.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Mr. GORDON moved that the House now go into a Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the several reports from the Judiciary Committee in regard to the pending Constitutional amendments.
The motion was carried, and Mr. Jewett took the chair.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, said: Being the author of the resolution which resulted in the several reports from the Judiciary Committee, now before us for consideration, I will not enter upon as elaborate a review of the subject, as I had intended, for the reason that so many members have and will take part in the debate that each of the points will be fully presented and thoroughly canvassed, and my attempting to touch them all would be trespassing upon the good nature of the House. Prior to the close of the polls last November, I was the candidate of a political party and its representative. When the result of that election was declared, I became the representative, not of one political party or of the other, but the Representative of the whole people of my District in the General Assembly. In my obligation to support the Constitution, that obligation included every article and section thereof. There was no mental reservation in that obligation in the case of Article 16 of the instrument in question. This instrument is no mere temporary agreement entered into to-day to be revoked to morrow. It is ordained by the voice of the people, and the voice of the people is the voice of God. My County has 6,000 voters. I received a petition praying for the submission of the amendments signed by less than 100 voters. I personally know these men who signed it. They are honest, law-abiding citizens. Many of my personal friends, who would scorn to do a wrong thing, and had they understood that they, by signing that paper, were asking me to forget my oath and commit moral perjury, they would under no circumstances have signed it. Understand me, I do not mean to say that other gentlemen who see fit to vote for the Jewett or Frazer report will commit perjury, but I do say it would be perjury for me to do so, for the reason that I believe in doing so I would not be supporting the Constitution.
If I could I would like to vote for submission. If the prohibition amendment was in proper condition to be submitted I would be glad to submit It. Mr. Williams continued at some length.
Mr SHIVELY said: If I should have consulted my physical condition to-day I am sure I would have remained silent. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that th subject for discussion is a narrow one-a plain one indeed. The whole question hinges upon the construction we pine upon twelve words in the Constitution. Gentlemen have contended here that these amendments are invalid because of the failure of the Clerk two years ago to enter them upon the journal. The gentleman from Marion (Mr. Bynam) held that the word "enter" meant but one thing and that was that they should be entered in full. I have endeavored in the little time I have given to this subject to find, if I could, what is the legal definition of the word 'enter." [Mr. Shively here read legal authority, showing that the word had a double signification, and that it did not necessarily mean to spread at large.] Gentlemen have referred to the Iowa decision. It has been referred to often by almost every member on the opposite side of this House. But I undertake to say that the Constitution itself settles this question, and let us not go abroad for light upon it, [Here Mr. Shiveley read certain portions of the Constitution.] When the framers of the Constitution meant that anything should be entered at large, they said so, leaving no room for doubt. I undertake to say that this reading puts at rest forever the rightful construction of this language. If they meant it should be spread at large, why did they not say so? Gentlemen have spoken of the wisdom and learning of the Constitutional framers and I join with them in such praise. I undertake to say that they understood the meaning of the word "entry," and that when they meant it should be entered at large they carefully expressed it so I would call attention to the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas, and the gentlemen on the other side have been very quiet about that decision. [Mr. Shiveley spoke at some length, citing authorities, etc.
Mr. PRICE said: I desire to make a few remarks to show plainly to the legal voters of my County why I vote as I shall on the reports under consideration. The Constitution should be supreme and above every party tie. The members on the other side of the House come pledged by their State platform to agree to the amendments page: 127[View Page 127] and submit them to the electors of the State at a special election I would not do the friends of the amendments the injustice of voting to submit said amendments to the people, believing that if ratified by the people the Supreme Court would have to declare them null and void, 'and thereby leave us in a similar condition like Iowa. The main question is Are these amendments before this body strictly in accord with the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution shall be my guide in voting in the reports now pending. The people, so far as I am informed, do not desire to have the amendments submitted to them if there Is any doubt of the legality of their condition.
Mr. WILSON, of Kosciusko, said: I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution used words of doubtful meaning. I believe that when they made that fifteenth article of the Constitution they studied every word that entered into it. It has been claimed here by gentlemen this afternoon that this is simply a political question, and that prohibition is a child of Republican birth, and that It has not off its swaddling clothes. But I want them to show me n full-grown man of Democratic origin. They chum the consistent position upon this proposition. It is said that consistency is a jewel, but I do not admit that it is a jewel in this instance. The Republican party never crosses a stream until it comes to it. But we find the Democratic party now constructing pontoons to cross a silt-lip, before it has crime to it. In reference to the Wabash and Erie Canal amendment the gentleman from Knox (Mr Williams) said it was all right though it was not Constitutionally passed, simply because the people indorsed it. What kind of logic is that? The gentleman on the other side know that if they submit these amendments they will lose one faction of their party, and if they do not submit them they will lose another faction.
Mr. GIBSON said: In the outset I had decided not to say a word. I admit that some gentlemen have made very able arguments on this question, arguments that would have sounded very well before a Court. I have said to myself what a benighted body this Legislature would have be without any Constitutional lawyer in it. In my opinion a model Legislature would be a Legislature without a lawyer in it. I acknowledge that there have been very able discussions on both sides of this question. The only question before us is whether this provision of the Constitution is mandatory or directory. You roust go back then to the decisions of the Court to see for yourself whether or not this question is mandatory or directory. Is it strange mat these gentlemen who have registered their oath in heaven are all men that are against the legality of the Constitutional amendments? In my opinion if there had been no Iowa decision, there would have been no reference of this matter to the Judiciary Committee, and we would have adjourned without knowing that we have here many Constitutional lawyers I am sorry that the gentlemen who just preceded me (Mr. Wilson, of Kosciusko) got a little tinge of politics in his arguments. I am sorry that he took that course I am a Democrat from principle. I am against prohibition from principle; but it required quite a trial in my mind whether I would decide for principle or for suffering humanity. Is it not better of this body should err at all that it should be on the side of suffering humanity?
I have always been taught that if you could find me a case, as a precedent in your own State, it was worth a dozen in any other. I believe that if it had been a convenient resolution it would have been necessary to have spread it at large upon the journals, because a concurrent resolution is not signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses. The amendment to the Constitution passed two years ago was a joint resolution. It was signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, when that was done it was all that was necessary to bring it before this House. The Supreme Court of Indiana decided that if the amendments are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate the Court does not examine the record to see whether or not all the steps were taken. The gentlemen on the opposite side of this question avoid this decision. They go to Iowa for a decision, and that not a unanimous decision. They also avoid the Kansas decision which in my judgment is the best of all.
MR. SUTTON-I regard the question now before the House of sufficient importance to command its most serious consideration. We are to decide by our votes a simple proposition, and yet, notwithstanding, it is in itself unpretentious, it involves principle which confers upon it such weight and seriousness that to ascertain the right and maintain it when found, demands the exercise of qualities of head and heart, which vitalize conscience, strengthen judgment, adorn the representative and extort approval.
Fortunately the question now before the House is, in so far as the Constitution is concerned, placed above partisanism. The Constitution knows no party-under its broad shield all parties find protection. The real question before the House is, Shall the Constitution be obeyed?
Sir, It is the Constitution that brings us here; it is that instrument that clothes this body with power to enact and repeal laws. We are in our representative capacity creatures of the Constitution, nor can any voice be heard in this hall, nor any vote be recorded upon any matter within the entire range of legislation, until the representative has taken an oath to obey the Constitution, I for one am glad that it provides for its own defense. It is the fundamental law, the foundation upon which the Governmental superstructure is built. It is a Constution of the people, by the people and for the people. Like all Constitution, it has one grand purpose in view, stability. Conscitutions are wisely conservative: as a general proposition, they are the result of research, of patient though, cool deliberation, and compromise. They state fundamental truths, map out lines of policy within which the people who live under them and are protected by them may exercise all their inalienable rights, maintain their independence and urge forward all their enterprises of progress and prosperity.
Constitutions wisely provide for their own amendments or abrogation. If a new Constitution is to be framed the old Constitution distinctly declares what shall be
THE METHODS OF PROCEDURE.
To amend a Constitution is, to all intents and purposes, to the extent that the amendment adds to or takes from the instrument, making a new Constitution-creating a fundamental law upon which other laws of indefinite sweep, for good or evil, may be based. Admitting this proposition, and I challenge contradiction, what is the position of the amendments upon which the last Legislature deliberated?
For myself I have no desire to evade the question nor belittle its serious significance. I am not unmindful that it has awakened widespread concern and that gentlemen of accredited erudition have arrived at antagonistic conclusions. But it has been my business, as a representative of a constituency, loyal to the Constitution, to ascertain what it demands when amendments are proposed. Permit me to read so much of Section I of Article 16 of the Constitution as bears directly upon the question under discussion: "Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to page: 128[View Page 128] each of the two Houses, such shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election."
Mr. Chairman, it is not my prerogative to arraign the last General Assembly. It may have performed its duties as best it could with the ability it possessed, but in so far as it dealt the Constitutional amendments upon which it deliberated, and doubtless voted, it committed one mistake, provided it was the intention to refer said amendments to this-the next General Assembly. It was a sin of omission for which this House can furnish no atonement. The Constitution commanded the last General Assembly, if it agreed to certain amendments to the Constitution, that it should, "with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals." This was not done. There is no such record-no commanding testimony. The journals of the last General Assembly are defective. Hearsay-rumor-common report-oral testimony does not answer the Constitutional requirement.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS "SHALL."
The last General Assembly disregarded the command. The letter and the spirit of the Constitution were cloven down together.
Sir, I am not a student of subterfuge, nor the votary of chicanery. It is no part of my duty to obscure the mistakes of the last General Assembly, nor declare by my vote that a glaring departure from an explicit mandate of the Constitution is of no consequence. I prefer to obey the Constitution, and take all the consequences of compliance with its mandatory provisions, Choosing the Constitution for my authority, my defense and guide, I have no hesitancy in declaring that the Constitutional amendments, which were doubtless acted upon by the last General Assembly, are not before this House and can not be Constitutionally brought before this body. Why? Because the Constitutional injunction, by virtue of which the amendments could be referred to this body, was disregarded.
I hold that the Constitution can not be unconstitutionally amended. I maintain that in such matters the partisan ought to take a back seat, and that patriotism should come to the front. Here loyalty to the Constitution should be enthroned. Here the great truth that the Constitution is the supreme law, should be recognized in all its majesty and power. Here, instead of seeking to dwarf its authority, there should be displayed on all sides a purpose to magnify its influence, if this is done, if gentleman can be persuaded to listen to the simple declarations of the Constitution, there can be little doubt as to results. When the Constitution says certain things shall be done, what member of this House will be willing to go upon the record by his vote, declaring that they need not be done?
I am aware that much has been said about giving the people a chance to vote upon the amendments. Sir, if I were to indulge in boasting, it should be my chief glory to declare that in all things I am one of the people.
I AM A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE,
not of corporations nor cabals, money and monopoly, but of the people, and when I plead for the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, I am, with whatever ability I can command, championing the cause of the people. Strike down the Constitution, weaken it in any of its provisions, and you not only mar its symmetry but you dwarf its protecting power. All the rights and privileges of the people center in the Constitution in standing by the Constitution, entering my earnest protest against any infraction of its decrees, I am in the broadest and highest conception of the term. the friend of the people. When the people of Indiana learn, as they will learn, that the last General Assembly disobeyed the Constitution they will be in no mood to approve of such dereliction of duty. The people demand, when their Constitution is amended, that it shall be done constitutionally. They want no unconstitutional laws. Nor do they demand unconstitutional amendments. While the people of Indiana are a matter of fact people they are intelligent, discriminating and conservative. It is no compliment to Indiana to intimate, here or elsewhere, that her people rather than wait, would prefer to see the Constitution violated. Such a stigma is undeserved. Loyalty to the Constitution is one of the resplendent virtues of our people, and should this General Assembly, by its vote, defy its power, the people of Indiana, with a sterner voice than has hitherto marked their indignation, will rectify the wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I see in this amendment question but one course to pursue, and I felicitate myself, that in deciding to take that course, I am sustained by the Constitution, by my convictions and judgment, and I am equally gratified to say that the more I have examined the subject the more firmly I am intrenched in the conclusion that the amendments which were before the last General Assembly have not been Constitutionally referred to this body for future action, and I am persuaded that no benefits can accrue to the State by a violation of its fundamental law. I do not pretend to be endowed with any special gift of prescience, but to my perceptions only embarrassments complications and vexations can result from deliberate violations of the Constitutions. Here, in our capacity of law makers, no example
NO SHADOW OF A PRECEDENT OF DISLOYALTY
to law should be tolerated. If this General Assembly shall say by its vote that a plain declaration of the Constitution can be set aside, what hope have we that the laws which we enact shall be treated with greater respect and reverence? A statute is of less consequence than the Constitution. If law makers can ibid an excuse for violating the Constitution, which they are sworn to obey, what guarantee remains that the people, whose servants we are, will not treat with like disdain the laws we enact?
There comes to us, sir, on every wind that blows complaints of a growing disregard of law. We are told that Judges are corrupt and that Jurors are bribed. I could, without drawing largely on my memory, introduce instances of judicial debauchery well calculated to humiliate any one possessed of a high sense of honor and faith in the capabilities and possibilities of human nature. Nor do these shameful recitals include only Courts and Juries-they embrace Legislatures and Congress, and are so terribly authenticated that their demoralizing influence is felt far and wide. Is it not well, therefore, for this General Assembly to ask wherefore this depravity, this far-reaching contamination of the very fountains of public thought?
THE ANSWER IS AT HAND.
Disregard of law, disregard of obligations, treating with contempt Constitutions and oaths, seeking to obscure rather than emblazon defects and departures from the straight and narrow way of duty, listening to clamor rather than conscience and Constitutions, and instead of mending ways doing that which expedites disintegration and danger I speak for myself on this floor. I am not opposed to amending the Constitution Indiana, though the Constitution as it is, in my opinion, meets all the requirements which, wisdom and prudence can demand. But, if it is to be amended, I for one stand here to declare that in so far as I can influence action it shall be Constitutionally amended. I will strike no blow at any of its requirements and commands. My fealty to the Constitution shall not be satisfied by adhering to certain provisions, while that as of little or no value other provisions which stand in my way. I shall cast no vote designed to obscure the fatal mistakes of the last General Assembly. page: 129[View Page 129] It disregarded the Constitution, and by its acts it must stand or fall. I am interested in the record this General Assembly shall make, and when the gavel falls for the last time, and this House is dismissed from its labors, I hope, whatever else may he said of it, that every page of its record may be emblazoned with votes, yea or nay-that above all and over all shall testify that it was true to the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, In conclusion I plead for thoughtful, prudent, conservative and cautious action. Let not sensational and partisan clamor direct our votes. Having faith in the Constitution of our State and in the wisdom of those who made it, I can not for an instant be led to believe that it is necessary to violate it in order to perpetuate its existence. If our opponents have raised a tempest it then becomes our duty to direct the storm so that justice may be done To all and the rights of the people be preserved and their liberties protected under the Constitution.
Mr. ANTRIM, was of the opinion that there was no irregularity in the proceedings of the last Legislature on the question of the Constitutional amendments. While He believed that every article of the Constitution should be strictly complied with, he did not think it was necessary to add any provision to the Constitution and then insist on compliance therewith. He did not think the word "enter" was a strange one to Courts and lawyers, citing examples from the statuses and other sources to show that the word didn't necessarily mean to spread at large; that in many cases it would be impossible to give the word such an interpretation.
Mr. STERRITT said: Whatever my personal desire may be regarding any of the amendments I deem it my first duty to known avid do what is required of me by the Constitution. That the amendments are Constitutional before this Assembly can not be doubted by carefully considering the journal of the Fifty-second General Assembly and Article 16 of the Constitution, and believing that, he should so vote, thus doing his duty under the Constitution to his people.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, moved that the Committee rise report progress, and ask leave to sit again to morrow at 9 a. m.
The motion was agreed to, and accordingly the Committee reported to the House this action.
The report was concurred in.
Then the House adjourn till 10 a. m.
