Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-02-21
For the St0te Sentinel.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
Shall we have TWO Legislative Bodies
or OnIy Onef
For The St0ie Seniil

The Sentinel of February 7th, contains commu-
nicatiOn under the head of Constitutional Reform,
introduced by editorial remarks favoring one eglsa-
tive body, instead of two under the Constitution
The grounds assumed in favor of the change are
f" Economy "-getting rid of " the pitifu and despi.
cable squabbes between the two bodies, often wit
messed, each attempting to oumaneuvre the other in
bringing on, or stavlng off an electlOn Increased
a. responsibility and in line, because the interests
OF the people are unit, and the people supposed
unit, so should the representa- IN be unit e, that
double representation represent single class
and single interest well aud truly single
representation.
The great points to be steadily pursued and gained
in the formation of constitution these
vito take away from the legislative body as far
practicable special and local. and private legisla
tion and the elections of Stale officers, and to subst
tute general la,oS and the elections of Slate and all
judicial officers by the people. Then there would be
no more squabbes about bringing on, stuving off
elections, except those Of United States Senators !;
aud for these the Constitution should make such pro-
vision TO prevent any and oil squabbles. by fixing
the day, and the mode of election With the abO-
ton of special local and private legislation and the
change of the elections of State and judicial officers
from the Legislature to the people, the great points
in favor of economy. honest and faithful legislation
and the fuller and better manifestation of the popular
will, in the laws, and their execution will be secured.
Upon these main points, therefore, the friends Of con-
stilutional reform should bring their greatest efforts
to bear; and, if possible, secure their full accom-
plishment.
1t is mistake, think, TO suppose that two legis-
lstive branches necessarily include double repre-
sentntlon." In Congress there double representa-
ton, well double organization of the legsIa-
tive power the people being represented in the House
OF Representatives, and the States in the Senate but
not in the States Both bodies represent the Peo-
pie, and it is only the organization of the representa-
tons OF this one interest that Is double. Aud this
double organization is made and supported upon the
ground OF It's public economy and safer and better e-
I glslatlOn. The same number of men divided into
two Legislative bodies could be discussing and matn-
ring Just double the number of laws at the same time
that they could be in one body and hence in the
sumo time required for a single body to discuss and
mature one hundred public acts, they could be passed
through both bodies, and douby discussed. There is
no real division of legislative responsibility between
the two branches composed Of 150 MEMBERS any more
than if these same $50 members composed one
branch the responsibility beings both cases, really
divided between 80 members, each of whom is re-
sponsble to the people, who elected him. In des-
putlsm there is division of responsibility, but our
government being, so far as the United States are
concerned, democratic, federal, representative re-
public; and in the State governments, democratic re-
preventative republics if it desirable, il
T is impossible to avoid division of responsibility,
equal the division of the trust and power dele
gated, and the number of delegates. In our national
and State governments, hold the individual mem.
bers table, each for himself and at is To the tnaria
ua responsibility that are accustomed to look fOl
safe legislation. Indipidual liability is the watch
, word Of the armies of Democracy. We never holt
the Senate or the House Of Representatives RESPONSE
bic for any Legislative act, if it be bad but
do hold each member of each branch responsible fol
his individual vote; and bis constituents, we ap
' prOre condemns him, serrant who has obeyet
or disregarded the will of his creators. The idea o
holding legislative bodies responsible, and thus open
f ing the door for the individual members TO shirk the
respective individual liability, is too monstrous no
to be rejected by all friends of constitutional liberty
1t is sufficient that every representative of free
enlightened people, render a strict account for hi
orn rotes and acts and not for the aggregate vote
and acts Of the body of which he is but siugl
member.
Though speak thus plainly and positively, if here
after any good arguments can be produced in favor
change from double TO single organization O
the Legislature, will give them that careful consd
: Grafton demanded by the whole question of constitu
y tional reform, considered IN all its aims and ends.
: al not welded to the past, aud always look upon
a with much doubt to be disposed freely to can
aud scrutinise the justice of its claims upon tn
present and future. But while disincned To pu
faith in things of the past, will not reject then
simply because they of the past. 1t is the par
of political wisdom to examine all things, and hol
! fast that which is good; and this, in making new
l. Constitution, let 10. usrce entirely with on