AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. HEFFREN moved that the House now proceed with the business on the Speaker's table.
The motion was agreed to.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 was taken up, read the first time, and, on motion by Mr. Jewett, referred to the Committee on Education.
The bill [S. 1] for a reorganization of the Benevolent Institutions was taken up, read the first time and passed to the second reading.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
On motion, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. Jewett in the Chair] for the further consideration of the present status of the proposed Constitutional amendments.
Mr HOWLAND did sot desire to make any lengthy remarks on the question. He thought we have had entirely too much said already, and believed that not a vote would, be changed if this discussion was to be continued until the end of the session. He thought that the framers of the Constitution so constructed it and made it so plain that any one could understand its meaning; that the amendments must be entered on the journal in full with the yeas and nays thereon, there can be no doubt. Every member who voted for that Constitution voted for it with that understanding. He believed that it was so construed thirty years ago, and he so construed it now.
Mr. CAMPBELL had been sitting here as a Juror to decide a case which, in his opinion, should not have occupied the time of the House one hour. On the assembling of this House every member thereof was furnished a copy of the journal of the proceedings of the House of the last General Assembly. In that journal every man can find sufficient evidence to satisfy any reasonable man that the House of the last General Assembly received petitions from a respectable number of legal voters of the State, asking that certain amendments to the Constitution be passed upon by that body and submitted to the people; and we can find in that journal, in my mind, reasonable evidence that that House, in good faith, complied with the request of the people; that the amendments were properly passed by that Legislature, were signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses, and were filed in the office of the State Librarian and a certified copy of the same filed in the office of the Secretary of State, he did not believe any member on the floor doubts. In the fall of these facts it is surprising that any member of this House, who was a member of the last General Assembly, should oppose the proposition that those amendments are properly before this House. Mr Owen, in the Constitutional Convention,said, "We do not propose that the organic law shall be in the power, of the Legislature" What are we doing now but taking the organic law of the State in our hands? We were sent here with an understanding that those amendments were pending, and that we were to vote for or against them according to our own sentiment and the sentiment of the people who sent us here.
Mr. KNOWLES had always been in favor of short prayers and short services at funerals. He considered the amendments legally before the House for its action thereon.
Mr. HOLLER said: Were I capable of discussing this question from a legal standpoint, I should consider it useless to do so at this stage of the discussion. I desire that my position upon this important question shall be known. We are to-day discussing the legality of a question which, if it was adopted by the Senate and this House, would strike down one of the greatest evils existing in our Nation. Sir, as Representatives of the citizens of the great State of Indiana, I believe it is our duty to support every legal measure that, will have a tendency to elevate our fellow-man. For this reason I stand here to-day in favor of submitting these amendments to the people. I know that there are many Democrats in the County of St Joseph who are desirous that these amendments shall be submitted to the people.
Mr. PETERS said: The question before this Legislature for the last four days has been, are there any Constitutional amendments legally pending before this General Assembly for its action thereon? The Senate has already decided that there are no such amendments legally before us, and I think it decided wisely. I take it that the Constitution means what it says In the section providing for its own amendment. If the framers of the Constitution had thought that the entering of the title to amendment would be sufficient evidence to identify such amendment after two years had passed, they would have said so, or they would not have said that the amendments, with the yeas and nays thereon, shall be entered w the journal. We will admit for the sake of argument that the word "enter" is susceptible of a definition that would admit an amendment by its title, and will gentlemen who hold this view turn with me to page: 139[View Page 139] the journal and see whether or not this has been complied with? I take it that if this is the case amendments would go through the same course that bills or acts would go through. They would be read and numbered and placed on the journal in that manner, and they would be spoken of or referred to the Committee by that name and number. If they were amended in any way as to affect their title, they would be referred to and placed on the journal by their amended title. If gentlemen will examine the House journal they will find that House joint resolution No. 7 was amended by striking out certain words in tie title, and it, is afterward referred to under the old title so having passed the Senate. Now, gentlemen, is this the same resolution that passed the House in the first place?
Mr. THOMAS believed that certain amendments to the Constitution were proposed two years ago, and so far as he could see, those proposed amendments were now legally pending before this House for its action thereon. He thought that as they were acted upon by the last Legislature they necessarily came before this General Assembly for its occurrence or rejection. He believed that every man in the State understood that the said amendments have been pending for he last year, and he would vote to submit the amendments to the people.
Mr. FLEECE came here to represent the people of Hendricks County, a County in which there has not been a saloon for twenty years. He stood pledged to his people and to God to vote to submit these amendments. It is every one's duty to keep his pledges. No political party has a right to bind the conscience of any man on the question of the Constitutional amendments.
Mr. HENDERSON believed the proposed Constitutional amendments were honestly and fairly before this General Assembly. The people not only of this but of other States are anxiously awaiting to see what kind of medicine this General Assembly will administer and the result of the administration. So far powerful sedatives and poisonous doses have been given upon the one side in the way of technicalities and formalities, and upon the other side good and wholesome food mingled with the pure and sparkling waters that have a tendency to invigorate and make them strong; and to-day, though dead in the Senate, we find they still live in the House and have power, backed up by the people of the great State of Indiana in their sovereign capacity. If the very letter of the Constitution must be complied with, it would cut off almost any possible chance for an amendment to the Constitution; therefore a liberal construction must be had to carry out the spirit and intention of that instrument. If we do not give the people the rights guaranteed to them by that Constitution, we take an advanced step toward centralization and revolution, which, if not checkmated by the people, may result in the destruction of this, the grandest and most noble Republic of all the Nations of the world.
Mr. McMULLEN said: The discussion of the question before the Committee has taken a wide range. He was here to defend the Constitution as it is, which we must all do until it is changed. He liked the Constitution because it is the Democratic law of this great Commonwealth. Our government is a Democratic-Republic forms neither purely Democratic nor purely Republican; but the fundamental law of our State-the Constitution-has more Democracy in it than any other, being even endorsed by the direct, vote of the people.
In the Constitution, Article 16. we have the will of the people clearly and fully expressed. They have said in no uncertain language what their will is. They have said their will is, when the Constitution is to be amended you shall amend it thus and so, and by the report which we seek to have this Committee recommend to the House for adoption, we say the people will, must and shall be obeyed; that if their fundamental law is to be amended, it shall be amended as they direct though the heavens fall. When the people sent you here to represent them they sent you here to represent them under, by and according to the Constitution. They have said you shall amend the Constitution thus and so, and you say they did not mean that we will do it another way. In effect you say they did not mean what they said and do that to all in the name of the people. No tyrant ever oppressed his people but what he did it in the name of liberty. You talk long and loud and cry out for the rights of the people and at the same time are trampling under foot the will of the people expressed to you by the highest and most sacred way known to a free people, viz. by their written Constitutional law. He believed these amendments are not properly before this General Assembly, and therefore would vote against their submission.
Mr. HEFFREN moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again next Tuesday at 10 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to, and-
The House concurred in the report of the Committee.
And then the House adjourned until to-morrow.
