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
