Indiana State sentinel., 1846-09-03
The State Convention.

the law of last winter, convention for the amend
ment of the Constitution Of the State can be legally
called
In reply to the objections which have been made,
and in making up our conclusions on the subject, we
have not been governed by our own judgment alone,
but have been sustained by able lawyers whom We
have consulted the subject. Thus fortified, we
proceed to notice objections and to state conclu-
slons and the reasons for them.
The law of last winter in relation TO the subject,
was intended TO afford to the electors of the State
opportunity to determine in respect to holding Con-
vention, according to the mode prescribed by the
Constitution 1t appears by the election returns that
majority of those who have voted upon the question:
have decided in favor of calling such convention.
The provision of the Constitution is as follows
"At 5, Sec. l. Every twelfth year after this Consti-
tuition shall have taken effect, the general election
held for governor, there shall be a poll opened in
Which the qualified electors of the State shall express
by vote, whether they in favor of calling Con-
vention not and if there shall be a majority of
all the votes given at such election, in favor Of
Convention the governor shall inform the next gene
raj assembly thereof, whose duty it shall be to pro-
vide by law for the election of the members of the
place of meeting; which law shall not be passed un-
less agreed to by majority of all the members
elected to both branches of the general assembly,
&c.
This portion of the Constitution does not confer,
enlarge, or restrict any right of the people to
BILE in convention, by delegates, for the purpose of
altering or amending the form Of government 1t is
merely directory, a mode of proceeding, and a
matter of convenience. 1t is intended to secure
peace and order, and to prevent confusion and vio-
lence, in such proceeding. Yet it is the rule by
which the people have determined TO proceed in
amending the constitution.
Under this provision of the constitution. what ma
jority is required to call convention! Some tell US
that it requires majority of all the votes given at
the August election. Others say, majority of all
the votes given for governors and others again. that
1t requires only majority of all the votes given
upon the question of the convention.
1t appears to be plain that this provision of the
constitution has no reference TO a majority of all the
votes given at the August election, for there is no
such expression in the language used. 1t must be
of the other two, for they only are mentioned in
the consttuton,-that is, the election for governor
and the poll opened for votes upon the question of the
convention.
We think it equally plain that the majority spoken
Of is not the majority of votes given at the election
for Governor. The Governors election is mentioned
only matter of reference to fix the time of OPEN
ing the poll for votes for and against convention
The election to decide upon calling convention is
the subject matter of the section-the rery thing un-
der consideration. In this connection the words
" majority of all the votes given at such election in
ia of ion &
election - mean the one under contemplation in the
section, the casually referred to We think it
would be doing violence to the language, or be a
quibble, to make the words such election re-
fer to the election held for governor.
We conclude then, that the intention expressed in
the Constitution is that convention shall be called,
if majority of those who vote upon the question
cast their votes in its favor. The language is if
there shall be majority of all the votes given at
such election, in favor of convention the governor
shall inform, &c. 1t to be absurd to suppose
that vote given for governor could be counted for
or against convention; that majority of votes
given for governor could decide the question of a
convention either way. The words-"a majority of
all the votes given," &C., must mean majority of
all the votes given the question of the convention,
or they make nonsense.
Another view of the subject is that the cOnstitu-
tiOn speaks of majority Of the votes given,' &c.
not of number equal to a majority of the votes
given at the election for governor There is no pro-
vision in our constitution laws that majority Of
votes given for purpose shall control the effect OF
votes given for another purpose. The rule is that
every measure shall be carried lost by the number
of votes given upon that measure. So for the elec
tion Of officers. We have no quorum of electors al
elections
/. may be said, that by this construction of the
constitution, less number than majority of all the
electors may call convention. So less number
than such majority may do so by the construction
we combat The candidate who receives the highes
number of votes for Governor is elected, although
one tenth the number of votes should be given fol
Governor which are given for 1t. Governor. A case
may happen in which the number of votes given fol
convention shall be equal to majority of all the
votes given in the election for governors and vet,
equal to the number of votes given against such
convention. What construction should be given I,
the Constitution in such a case!
Another question which arises is, has the Legisla
ture right to prevent the convention by refusing Il
pass the necessary laws! There is in the Legisla
tureno such right or power 1t is their duty to pas
the law. But they may nevertheless refuse to pas
it, and prevent the regular mode of holding the con
vention as prescribed in the Constitution. The righ
of the people, under the I'd section Of the lst artcl
of the Constitution, still remains unimpaired Th
Legislature may refuse to obey the instructions of tn
people and the injunctons Of the Constitution, but i
such case the people may proceed to hold the con