Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-03-15
Senatorial.

Ind. Sentinel.
Both of Our Young friends of the State or /
gan will live to be ashamed of the above 7
paragraph, unless they are very unfortunate
and die young. Gentlemen as intelligent as
they are, must know that there has been no
statutory law since the adoption of the new
Constitution upon the subject of electing L.
;. Senators; that If such a law is necessary
the duty devolved clearly upon the General
Assembly which elected John Petit. One
OF the editors Of the Sentinel was a member of
that Legislature possibly he has ingenuity
sufficient to explain how the election of State
officers and Senator was accomplished dur
ing that session, without a statutory Law
regulating the Same.-lHadison Courier. /
Gray hairs should Be respected Foibles
and sins are honorable with age.
The editors Of the Sentinel may adie
Young lit were better 50, than to "grow
stupid With years and ignorant with expert
ence"
No reflections are cast upon our friend of
the Courier. He is not an old Jagy-has as
Vet, but fs,0 gray hairs-is neither stupid, nor
inexperienced.
The CoulTel's paragraph, whatever effect it
may have upon its editor, has failed to send
the flush ofshame to the cheeks Of his young
friends Of the State organ They have yet to
be convinced that the adoption Of The New,
q onzlI thElen = I5ds.Iih 81 -
the previously existing statutory laws-thcy
have vet to enlightened with the astonish-
ing intelligence that United States Senators
have ever been chosen in this State, except in
accordance We law. in force ottLe time, pre-
scribing the mode Of election.
The Act of February Sd, 1887, providing
for the election Of United States Senators by
viro soee vote, was adopted and continued
without radical change by the Revision of
1S43. The laws of 43,with their subsequent
amendments, remained in force until the
taking effect of le acts of the General
Assembly Of 1852 legislature upon
which devolved the duty Of conforming the
statuatory enactments Of the State to the
provisions of the new Constitution. The Re-
vised Statutes Of 1852 could not, and did not
go into force until published AMI distributed,
which was not accomplished until the 9th day
Of May 1853. As consequence then, the
laws of as, with their amendments, remained
In force until that time, which was about swo
months subsequent to the adjournment of the
Session of SO. A reference to the late deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court, upon the point in
question, will sul,stantiate the statement here
made, IN the matter Of the operation and
effect of the laws of 1852
Mr. PETIT was elected United States
Senator in January 1853, in accordance with
the provisions of the law of 81, already cited,
an force at the time cj has election and until the
9th day Of the May following, at which time
the repeating clause of the Statutes of 52
swept it from existence.
The members of the General Assembly of
1853, by whom Mr. PETIT was chosen Sena-
tor, were furnished with unbound copies of
the Revised Statutes of 1852, with directions
from the Secretary of State not to permit
them to pass into other hands, as the laws
embodied had not at that time gone into force.
dent to any reasonable mind, that the duty of
prescribing the mode of electing United States
Senators devolyed npon the late General As
sembly- The Constitution of the United
States, after declaring that '.Ae Senate Of the
United States shall BE composed Of t,co Senator's
from each State, chosen by the legislature hereof
goes on to assert-in specific terms, that "the
times, places, and manner Of holding elections for
senator's and representatives SHALL BE FREscRI-
BED IN EACH STATE By THE LEGISLATURE
The times, places and manner of holding cleo
tions for Senators shall BE prescribed by the
Legislature. An appointment by joint-resol,s-
ton of the two Houses, having in itself the
force of statutory enactment might perhaps
be legitimate and proper. An election, how
ever, entered into without law, with no time.
or place, or manner previously prescribed by
statutory enactment, would certainly be illegal
and imperative. This conclusion is the more
palpable if it is understood that such election
shall be held by jOint-conre,tion of the two
Houses The Constitution of the United
States requires the election of Senator bv
the legislature of the State The fundamen-
tai law of Indiana declares that 1.-THE LEGIs-
LATIvE AUTHORITY Of The State shall be rested
an the General assembly lglicI shall consist of a
SENATE and O. House OF REPRESENTATIVES,. ,,
1t also asserts that " each House shall hare all
heposceTs necessary for branch If the legisla-
the department. c5a free and h'dspencea, State
Nowhere, however, does the Constitution re-
eognize a .joint-conrention of the two Houses
as body possessing any legislative authority
whatever. The Joint-eonrention system of
electing officers, at best and when sanctioned
by statutory enactment, is of very doubtful
legality, and has nothing but the antiquity of
the usage TO recommend it. In such a con- I
vention the great design, actuating the crea-
ton of t'co branches ofthe legislative depart
ment, is lost sight Of, and the ide1,e,ale1a ac- /
ton Of each Is swallowed up in the grand ag /
gregate.
A statutory law might elOthe joint-conresi-
ton with the senJlaAce Of authority. With 4
out an enactment, however, defining its pow
ers, such an assenaIIage would be nothing more
nor less, than mere meeting Of the members,
and its acts would be as imperative, in le-
gal point Of view, as would the transactions of
the same men, ifvoluntaTily convened at any
time during the recess Of the Legislature, and
at ..ay place within tiie limits of the State
With blindness only worthy Of them
selves, however, and of the ephemeral con-
country with its wisdom, the titsin men,
bers Of the late General Assembly, without
any legal authority to sanction their course,
attempted to throw the Legislature
into ioiat-co1ve''tioa for the election of a
Senafnr