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.
