Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-10-24

FRIDAY, October IS, 1850.
The Convention was opened by prayer, this morning,
by the Rev. Mr.. Cooper.
Mr.. Owen, from the committee the rights and pri-
vieges OF the people of the State whom the
rial of the Society of Congregational Friends was re-
erred asking that there should be distinction color
in the rights and privileges of the citizens, reported
that the committee, after investigating the matter had
decided that it is nexpcdient insert anv such proy
sion in the amended Constitution and ask leave he
discharged from the further consideration of the subject
The report unanimously concurred in, and the CON-
mittec discharged.
The resolutions of an imperative character, hereto
fore laid over, were taken up.
The resolution for inserting provision in the Const
tuition, that majority OF all the members elected Of
either branch of the General Assembly shall
sary to pass any law, and that the and shall
be taken the passage of every bill, then taken
Mr. Kelso opposed the resolution at least much
required majority Of all elected to pass BILL and
moved to make il a resolution of inquiry only.
Mr.. Stevenson hoped the question would be met at
once. One decision had been made by tie Convention
reference biennial sessions. He advocated the
CLINTON the ground that few members should not be
suffered to pass important measures; winch had some
times been done towards the close of the session by
mere handful. provision of the kind contemplated by
the resolutions contained in the New York Consti-
tuton and no evil had arisen under it. Indeed, he be-
leved it would he productive of much good.
Mr.. Pepper, of Ohio, in favor of deciding the
question az once There certainly hardship in
requiring y-one members pass bill where House
might consist of one hundred members He hoped the
imperative character of the resolution would not be al
tered.
Mr.. Clark, of Tppecanoe, in favor of settling
the question; but would against the resolution He
said that members might withdraw and thus prevent
majority from being obtained.
Mr. Shoup favored the resolution, and also of settling
the question once without having the ground TO ira
vel over again He contended that it the duty of
every legislator be present. and should measure be
defeated in consequence of his absence, he would be
responsible to his constituents. measure OF this kind
would prevent hasty and improper Legislation.
Mr. Ritchey said, that complaint than any other
had been made against much legislation In his leg
lave experience he had seen bills OF most obnoxious
character passed. where the ayes and had been
called. He was in favor of making the ayes and noes
necessary on the passage OF every bill He also in
favor of requiring majority Of all the members elected
every bill before it could be passed. He did
whether the resolution referred to committce or
not.
Mr. Niles said, il discosr;cous o the of
the resolution to changeits character in important
particular. He hoped that the freedom Of discussion
would not he put down in this way 1t is not necessary
that matters should be decided upon at once but they
may be postponed from 'day TO day. In his section Of
the State there but sentiment, and that was
that there should be guards against nwise and
hasty legislation He would not alter the imperative
character of the resolution but he would make 1t still
more sfrngent and, should occasion offer, he would
move an amendment providing that every bill should he
read entirely through three several days Of the scs