THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,
Mr. VAN VORHIS offered the following:
Whereas, The Constitution provides that any amendments may be proposed in either House of the General Assembly; and,
Whereas, The Constitution further provides that any proposed amendment or amendments, when agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two Houses, "shall, together with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on the journals and referred to the General Assembly chosen at the next election; and,
Whereas, It is known that certain amendments were under consideration in the last General Assembly; and,
Whereas, If any proposed amendment or amendments were agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each House, such proposed amendment or amendments should be found on the journals; therefore
Resolved, That the Judiciary be instructed to examine the journals of the House of Representatives and Senate of the last General Assembly and report at an early day what, if any, amendment or amendments to the Constitution were proposed by that Assembly and referred to this, and are now on said journals awaiting the action of the Senate.
Mr. VAN VORHIS read from manuscript a care fully prepared argument in support of his resolution, citing various authorities and decisions tending to prove that the absence of the proposed Constitutional amendments from the pages of the Clerk' journal of the last General Assembly prevents action on those amendments by this General Assembly except as a new proposition.
Mr. SPANN, not desiring to enter upon this discussion from a legal standpoint at this time, indicated his opposition to the resolution, especially the latter part. Instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the journals of the twc Houses,. because that is not right, or fair or just to the people of the State. It is not right or fair because a majority of that Committee is made up from, the Democratic party, and an opinion from that, Committee might influence some members on this floor. He said; I am sorry to part company with my friend from Marion County (Mr. Van Vorhis). I admire the courage he has displayed on this question, but I desire to say to him that as between him and the Republican party the roads, fork on this question, and I believe the Republican party will stand square upon this question as honest men standing upon a platform that shall give to evey man the right to investigate for him self.
Mr. BROWN hoped the Senate would adopt the resolution. He did not understand that a report from a Committee would bind the conscience cut any Senator. No one is expected to answer the able and conclusive argument of the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis], if indeed it can be answered at all, without a faithful and careful investigation ot the question. The Senator from Rush [Mr. Spann] may make the roads fork if he chooses between the entire Republican party and the Senator from Marion [Mr. Van Vorhis] if he chooses, but it will take a much more able man than the Senator from Rush or any member of his party to overturn the sound reasons the Senator from Marion has given. This is not a question that dips its wing into the dirty pool of politics, but it is a question that appeals to the judgment and conscience of every individual Senator. No party this side of hell and the grave, or hell itself, could bind him to vote according to the dictates of its caucus upon a question of such high importance aa this. The Wabash and Erie Canal resolution is a pre page: 50[View Page 50]cedent, and that was not entered upon the journals of the two Houses as the Constitution requires; but that question was not raised then-it was not discussed at all. No person thought anything about it. But the Wabash and Erie 'Canal simply asserted the State's continuation of the contract between the holders of the stock and the State herself. And it can not be regarded as a precedent of the high authority that it would be, had the question been discussed and attention called to it as attention has been called to this. But whether the Wabash and Erie Canal amendment is a part of the Constitution or not, depends entirely whether it asserts the right or wrong construction of the contract. A clause in the Constitution that would strike down the rights in a contract between the State's creditors and herself, would be void anyway.
Mr. BELL did not propose at this litre to enter into a discussion of the question involved. It is one of the highest intent si to ail. Neither did he regard it as a political question. When he learns where the right and truth lie, it is beyond the power of any body of men belonging to any party to control or direct his actions. This is a question of jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction in any amendment not properly passed a preceding General Assembly in accordance with the Constitution. Our action and our judgment is final and no Court in the land can review or go behind it. Every member is called upon to exercise his highest skill in the determination of this question. The principal point about it he was not well satisfied is what is meant by the words in the Constitution, "to be entered on the journals,". If the Constitution had said "to be spread at length upon the journals of the House." then there would be no doubt about the meaning whatever. Do those words in the Constitution mean that a minute shall be entered, or do they mean the resolution itself shall be entered? Do they mean it shall be spread hic verba, to use the language of the law? There are peculiar reasons why that should be so. The strong reason is there seems to be no other method of authentication provided. It need not be by joint resolution that amendments may be proposed. They may originate in either House and agreed to by members of both Houses. Another reason in support of this view is that the framers of the Constitution were contemplating a safe preservation of the exact language of the proposed amendment, so that it might be out of the power of anybody to change it. A paper to be found only among the mass of matter in the Secretary of State's Office containing so importatn a matter as an amendment to the Constitution-the attempt to preserve such a paper in that manner would be unwise, and that may have been the view the framers of the Constitution took of it. It is altogether probably the framers of the Constitution meant to provide a method of preservation beyond the possibility of mistake, and to put it beyond the power of change or loss. He hoped the resolution would be passed; hoped the Committee would investigate and report all the light that can be had on the subject, and then hoped to hear not only from those who agreed with him, but just as freely from those who disagreed.
The resolution was adopted-yeas, 27; nays,21-as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Bell, Benz, Bischowsky, Brown, Compton, Davidson, Duncan, Faulkner, Fletcher, McClure, McCulloch, Null, Rahm, Richardson, Smith of Jay, Van Vorhis, Voyles, Willard, Youch-26.
Nays-Messers. Adkison, Bundy, Campbell, Ernst, Fleming, Foulk, Graham, Henry, Keiser, Lockridge, Lindley, McCartney, Marvin, McIntosh, Overstreet, Ristine, Sayre, Smith of Delaware, Spann, White, Yancey-21.
Pending the roll call-
Mr. BISCHOWSKY, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said as the resolution of the Senator from Marion only peeks to have the facts reported by the Judiciary Committee concerning the Constitutional amendments, and not the opinion of that Committee, he should vote "aye."
Mr. HOWARD, when his name was called stated his pair with the Senator from Noble [Mr. Hostetter], and as this has the aspect of a political question, preferred not to vote.
Mr. WILLARD, in explanation of his vote, said as he understood it this resolution merely calla upon the Judiciary Committee to furnish any information it may be able to obtain in regard to the condition of the journals, and as he could not understand it as requiring an expression of opinion either one way or another upon the question as to whether these amendments have been property entered upon the journals, but merely for the purpose of securing this information under the authentication of the Judiciary Committee, should vote "aye."
Mr. YANCEY, when his name was called, said as he believed these amendments pending and these sort of measures simply a hood-winking, a quibble, and a legerdamain practice to fool the people of the State, he should vote "no."
The vote was then announced as above recorded, and so the resolution was adopted.
