The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1867-03-28
ssnaterisl Election.

81
Senatorial Election. 2.' =
Awaiting myself Of the courtesy which the
Editor Of the Palladium he's hitherto sztsnasa
to me, and for which am under obligations, !
lures in last weeks issue.
trust the editor and myself have but one
motive in this discussion, and thAt ~ both
have the honesty and msnlinsss to give 70 the
winds eli prejudice and personal considerations.
II not, discussion can lead TO no useful
result. 20 81
did not intend to accuse the editor Of favor
ing the 18th Article. or Of Directing to my
course in regard to it. Perhaps my language
was not sufficiently explicit. had been
cussd Of regarding lightly. the binding oblga-
tions Of an oath as regards the 18th Article. ]
attempted to show that the 18th Article. being
in conflict with the Constitution Of the United
States. 10 no part of the Constitution OF the
State Of Indiana. and that ! could not therefore
by any supposable hypothesis. have taken 40
oath TO support it.
The assertion that the ineligibiity clause
stands on the same footing with the 18th Ar.
,icle. is quite gratutous; and until it is proven
! shalt content myself with respectfully declin
ing to take either horn of the proposed dilemma
II is claimed
LIST. That the inslisibiIity clause conflicts
with the Constitution Of the United States. b
cause it imposes additional qualifications for
United States Senator.
3D. That it refers "soisly to offices within
the State"
1t il plain that both these propositions can
not be true. II it imposes additional qualiica-
tons for United States Senator, then it must
refer 70 other than offices WITHIN the State"
II it rsfsrs ''solely 70 Offices WITHIN the State"
then it cannot impose additional qualifications
for United States Senator.
As both these hypothesis are sometimes
urged to explain away the meaning of the
Constitutional provision. it may not Be i'm
proper to examine theru by turn. I cannot
believe that the last hypothesis is very conf
IDENTIFY relied ON even by those who urge it.
IL will probably b the easier one to dispose OF.
however, so We will consider il first.
Does the phrase. ANY other Office relate
SOLELY to offices WITHIN the State p To give
:he language ito legitimate meaning, it csrtain-
y does not ANY other Office is general
The United States Ssnatorship is another
ofdcs," and is therefore included
II is argued that the convention intended.
State Offices. Then it should have said so.
What Is the evidence that State Offices ONLY
were intended Unless there is some strong
collateral evidence to the contrary, We are
forced to interpret its intentions from what il
actually DID say. 1t said Neither the Gov
ernor or Lieutenant Governor shall be eligible
to any other orrlcE,'' and the presumption must
he that ANY other Office was intended
II is sometimes stated that the journal and
debates Of the convention show that STATE
Offices were intended. II happens that the
United States Senator is the only "other Office"
mentioned; and it is evident from the whole
context, that the United States Ssnatorship
was The Office specially intended.
1t is believed that every Governor the State
has ever had. and most of the Lieutenant
Governors have been aspirants for election to
the United States Senate. Many have sue
ceeded. In view Of the grsa. inausscs which
the Governor. BY reason Of his position, il en-.
ablsd to bring 10 bear on the members of the
Legislature. it was thought proper by the con-
vsntion to remove the temptation, and require
him 10 discharge the duties Of the Office to
which the people elect him.
II is reasonable to suppose that constitu.
tionAl convention would not insert prohibitory
clause Of the kind in question, unless it was to
cuss or prevent s6ms evil. Ii any other
sf6cs" applies '.solely to Offices wrrHrx the
Stats,' what possible evil could it cure or pre-
rent! What Office solely within the State"
could it bs supposed that the Governor Of In
diana would ever aspire 10 I. That convention
may have done great many foolish things,
but think nothing 80 foolish as to provide that
the Governor should not Be eligible to STATE
of6ee. 81 1fr
But whatever the convention may have in.
tsnded," The Constitutions actually DOES render
shs Governor i.eligible. The convention only
proposed he Constitution to The people. 1t is
moro QUESTION. what the people intended,
than WA ~ eonssation intended. Il was
the vote u the people shas gave Ne Constisu.
ton vitality. IL Vas thsy who really enacted
t. and thsir iatsnaioo can b ascsrtsined only
from the Constitution iassif-only tom the To-
gitimats meaning Of the language Il ths Con-
stitukion. -ssF
1t Is hardly sscsssary V angus this ques-
ten further. tt iass thaa .9tass Offices.
only wMs iaGsaAsd. d - na,isstly ahsurd-
- sslEsvidsaAlY sssass0I 49, The statement
- tASwA ssfabaAsa iii sves H8
~ esnnunicasion = alrssly 10 loae. and
shall b constrained 70 al, e a.ethsr tims.
the courtesy Il IL editor. to argue IL subject
tufshsr Isaac KyvlFY.