HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, Jan 39, 1883-10 a. m.The session was opened with prayer by Representative Frazer, of Rush County.
The Clerk's minutes of yesterday's proceedings were being read, when-
On motion of Mr. STEWART, the further reading of the journal was dispensed with.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
On motion of Mr. HEFFREN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Jewett in the Chair, for the further consideration of the proposed Constitutional amendments.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, thought that the members should divert themselves of party prejudices, and approach this question with a judicial turn of mind. Every man who entertains any doubt in his mind of the legality of the pending of the amendments must give the Constitution the benefit of the doubt. Section 1 of Article 16, provides that a proposed amendment must be entered upon the journal. It seems as though certain members have read the Constitution leaving this section out. This section is to the Constitution what Sampson's ha[?] was to his strength. Do the words "shall enter" mean you may, if you desire? There is no word in the English language, taken in its directory and usual meaning, so imperative as the word "shall." When the Constitution says that the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal, does it mean that you page: 133[View Page 133]may enter them or you may not? If the Constitutions is, as the gentlemen claim, simply directory in the case of these amendments, then it is simply directory in the case of keeping a journal. This provision is mandatory and you can not get around it. Not even the substance of these amendments has been entered upon the journal I say to those gentlemen who claim that if the Constitution meant to spread at large it would have said so, and that if the Constitution meant to enter in substance it would have said so.
Mr. SHAFFER said: I do not know that I should say anything on this question which is now before you. You have had this question discussed by some of the distinguished lawyers of this State and they have confined themselves very closely to the Constitution. Now, gentlemen, I am no lawyer, but I want to present the ideas I entertain on this question. I say to you, gentlemen, that when I made my canvass I was opposed to prohibition, but in favor of submission at a special election, which I believe is right and proper. I will so record my vote. I am a Democrat and have been a Democrat for fifty years. I do hope that they will give the people the amendments and let them pass their judgment upon them. I believe that the course that some Democrats in the Senate and some Democrats in the House are pursuing will defeat them two years from now. The great proportion of the people in my County declare that the amendments should be submitted to the people; the ladies especially in the Democratic houses desire that they should be submitted. These are the reasons why I, as a Democrat, believe that the amendments should be submitted. These amendments were discussed in the Legislature two years ago. They have been in the minds of the people for the last two years. The people are interested in the amendments and desire to have them passed and submitted.
Mr. DEEM regarded the objection to a considering the Constitutional amendments as entirely technical. If they have not been properly referred to this body then all the excitement and enthusiasm of the stupendous political struggle of last year was a gigantic farce and fraud. The alleged irregularity turns upon the word entered. The Clerk of the House made no mistake in this question when he made up the journal of last session, and his acts are sustained by a proper interpretation of the English language, and are endorsed by established precedent and the highest judicial authority. What more would the gentleman demand?
Mr. DAVIS voted against these proposed Constitutional amendments two years ago, believing then, as now, that it was never intended to advance the true interests of temperance reform. This question ought not be kept in suspense simply for its influence of future campaigns. He desired action on this question now, leaving the ultimate decision as to the Constitutionality to the Supreme Court.
Mr. GORDON said: I regret that Democratic members of the House have seen fit to take their position upon the ground, or upon the view that the decision of this question will affect the Democratic party. I have not allowed myself to look at the question of how it will affect the Democratic party in the future. I have tried to see how it will in the near or distant future affect the Constitution. I regret to hear a man say that if it requires you to violate your oath, why violate your oath. I am of the opinion that these amendments are not now pending before this Assembly. Every report before this House agreed to one thing, and what is that? It is that the provisions of the Constitution have not been strictly complied with. We are told that these amendments are sufficiently identified. Let us see if this is the case. The Constitution says that these amendments shall be entered upon the journal. This is for the purpose of identification by the next Legislature. Do the enrolled resolutions in the office of the Secretary of State prove anything? Are they competent to identify these resolutions? I say they are not. They amount to nothing, for the reason that they are not the kind of evidence the Constitution requires. If this Legislature may disregard one provision of the Constitution, may not another Legislature disregard another provision, and so on until no single provision will be of binding force?
Mr. MELLETT said: It seems to me that any discussion of this question is more in the nature of an obituary than anything else. The importance of the question has been alluded to by every gentleman who has undertaken to discuss it. It is a well-known fact to us all that for two years it has been the question above all others which has been talked about by the people of Indiana. It is of vital importance to the people of this State-to the people now living in the State and those who are to come after them. It is not necessary nor is it right that the merits of these amendments should be discussed now. It is simply whether they shall be further submitted to the people, from whence they originated, for further action thereon. I am one of the members who believe that these amendments are properly pending before this General Assembly for action thereon I believe with the gentleman from Clarke [Mr. Gibson] that it is not right, that it is not just, to destroy them at the present time. If true, as a gentlemen have suggested, that the organic law of any people, of any Nation, should be supreme, it ought to be such as could not be changed or torn down upon any mere freak, pretext or pretence. But while this is true, it is not less dangerous to disregard the fact that the power is given to the people to change this Constitution. The question for us now to determine, the question for us to decide in this House, regardless of what may have been done anywhere else in regard to the amendments were agreed to and adopted under the circumstances under which they were that they were doomed to die. I believe that the judgment was passed upon them long before the meeting of this Assembly. These amendments are fatally entangled in a party web. Mr. Mellett, after some further remarks, yielded the floor to
Mr. Copeland, who moved that the Committee arise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at 2 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to, and, accordingly, the Chairman [Mr. Jewett] reported as the Committee directed, and the report was concurred in by the House.
Then came a recess until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. JEWETT, from the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced the general appropriation bill for 1883, 1884, and 1885, which was read the first time and passed to the second reading.
Mr. Smith moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the reports from the Judiciary Committee on the Constitutional amendments.
The motion was agreed to, and accordingly the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Jewett in the Chair.
Mr. MELLETT resumed the discussion of the question where he left off at the noon recess. At the conclusion of Mr. Mellett's remarks-
Mr. GIBSON moved that the Committee recommend that the House take a vote on the adoption of the reports on next Tuesday at 10 a. m.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of Tippecanoe, said: I have no desire to set myself right before my constituents. I have confidence in them and I am sure that they have confidence in me. To speak of the Consti page: 134[View Page 134]tutionality of the Constitutional amendments is a misnomer. Whenever the people pass favorably upon an amendment it becomes a part of the Constitution. It has been decided that the people in their sovereign power could cure any little irregularity that might be found in the various stages that the amendments pass through before their submission to the people. It is the province of the Courts to speak the law, and it is the province of the Legislature to make laws. I shall stand by the rights of the people to make and frame and amend the organic law of the country.
Mr. MOCK discussed the question from a legal standpoint. It is not a question of whether prohibition is right or wrong, nor whether the Republican or Democratic party is right or wrong. Any person really in favor of prohibition should not desire the question submitted to the people if it can not be done Constitutionally. A great deal has been said about what is directory and what is mandatory, but Section 1, Article 16 of the Constitution points out the particular way in which that instrument may be amended. For himself he would say that no amendments to the Constitution are before this General Assembly. Were we to pass them and the people ratify them, a decision of the Supreme Court would set them aside
Mr. ADAMS regarded this discussion as having taken a wide range. He held legislative construction of such a question to be paramount to any judicial decision on the subject. You can tell just as well that amendments were passed two years ago as you can tell what las were passed then. No clerical error can or ought to defeat the will of the people.
Mr. WRIGHT believed the contents of the joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution should be considered, and then did it receive the required vote in the General Assembly. The directory or mandatory questions do not come into the discussion. To enter upon the journal does not mean spreading at large on the journals. If the framers of the Constitution meant enter in full, why did they not say "enter at large?" Can any one tell why the legal and executive construction of this question should be overthrown? Who dare say such precedents are likely to work harm to the people of Indiana? If these amendments are stifled the people will consider it a shame. They are fairly before the General Assembly, and he should, so vote.
Mr. SHOCKNEY insisted we are here to carry out the will of those we represent. The people of the State are demanding that this child shall not be stifled in its infancy. Will gentlemen, because of a mere technicality, say they shall not have a voice on this question? Constitutional and legal questions can not be settled by a strict party vote. The people should have the right to say whether these proposed amendments shall become a part of the Constitution or not. The one question pending is will we submit them or not. When he had concluded-
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to bit again to morrow morning.
The motion was agreed to Accordingly-
Mr. JEWETT, Chairman thereof, reported as directed by the Committee of the Whole, recommending that the House take a vote on the reports from the Judiciary Committee at 10 o'clock next Tuesday, and That the Committee of the Whole have leave to sit again to-morrow morning.
The House concurred in the report.
And then came an adjournment until 10 o'clock to-morrow under the rules.
