Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1869-06-11
Senator Morton on the Indiana Ratiflca-
tjOn.

It was announced the other day, by tele-
graph, that Mr.. Senator Morton, the great
constitutional lawyer of the Senate, had
made an argument, through the Indian
apolis Journal, in favor of the validity, in
substance and in form, of the ratification,
by the Indiana Legislature, of the pro-
posed Fifteenth Amendment. That argu-
ment is now before us. In his usual style,
clear, cogent and exhaustive, the Senator
presents the case 1t is quite too long for
publication entire. But, as the final adop-
ton of the amendment, in case the n
diana ratification was valid, is no longer
doubtful, the matter is deserving of special
consideration. Much has been written
and said about it before, but now, for the
first time, has q conclusive, unassailable,
vindication of the Legislature been fur
nished. s..,-
The facts in the case are too we'll
known to need more than the briefest re-
statement. l...
The Democratic minority in the two
branches of the Legislature resigned their
seats in order to block the wheels of leg
islation, and thus defeat ratification. They
80 far succeeded on their first resort to
this trick that the balance supposed them
selves a mere rump, changing on the
verge of the Government" and went home,
while the Governor proclaimed an election
to fill the vacancies thus made. The re-
signers having been reelected, the Legis-
lature was called again. After the ordi-
nary business of the session had been
nearly completed, and the Fifteenth
Amendment was to be taken up again, the
Democratic faction resorted to the same
trick. In the Senate they were partially
thwarted by little sharp practice on the
part of the majority; but in the House
vote was not reached until the resigna-
tions had taken effect and been duly re-
cognized. 1856
AS the Senatorial ratification would
amount to nothing standing alone, the dis
pute is this: Was there, after the resigna-
tions, the necessary quorum? The Legis-
lature, when the trap was first sprung
upon them, thought not, but, by the time
the trick was played again, the members
had changed their minds, at least they had
so far changed their opinion that they re-
solved to test the matter. If any of them
were troubled in the least with misgivings,
this mastery argument must have set their
minds at rest.
When fully represented the House con-
sists of 100 members, the Senate of 50
ne 6l6YCubu eCCblOA VI pAO eAAN esA oANAS
of the Constitution declares that "two-
thirds of each House shall constitute q
quorum to do business" Now, the final
question is, Does "two-thirds of each
House" mean of the actual members at the
time, or of "all the members elected to
each House" Here all the controversy
lies. The Senator'S argument on this
point deserves to be distinctly and fully
understood. We therefore give it, as it
stands: .s,....
Section 1s, of Article ~, reads as fol
| lows:
Every bin shall be read by sections on three
several days, in each House, unless, in case OF
emergency, by q vote of two-thirds of the House
where such bill may be depending, 1t shall be
deemed expsdient to dispense with this rule y
The corresponding provision In the old Consti-
| tuition of 1916 was in these words Every bill
shall be read on three several days in each House,
| unless, by vote of two-thirds of the House
where the bill may be depending, it shall be
deemed expedient TO dispense with this rule. -
1t has never been the practice, under either Con.
sitution that the suspension of the rules required
sixty seven votes in the House, thirty four the
Senate, although the phraseology is precisely the
] same with that employed in the eleventh section