The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-07-21

evenly in their hands, and decide the law
as IL is, fearlessly. It is the only safety that
remains for the people. The body of cleo
tors of the State who assembled and voted
at the April election, 1850. were TO deter
mine whether the amendments should be
ratified or not While every legal voter in
the State is one of the electors mentioned
In the Constitution, yet Courts hold
that, for convenience, and because il
would be too burdensome to adopt a more
vigorous rule, the electors who vote at the
election to which the amendments or other
questions are submitted shall be held to be
the total legal voters of the State. This does
not change the actual number of electors,
but is a rale of evidence adopted for con-
venience; and when the rule is evidently q
false one, 1t may be rejected, for the purpose
Is to determine in good faith whether ma.
jority OF all the electors has approved the
proposition or not.
In the case lately decided by the Court,
admissions were made in the record. Tins
was wholly Immaterial, and could not and
was not considered by the Court The fatal
objection was that the law submitting the
amendments to the people fixed the body of
electors TO be those who should assemble and
vote at the April election. 1880; but the law
provided no means of counting and return
ing The number oil this body. The submis-
sion was all we'll enough and perfectly
legal. but when the Legislature elect
ed to submit the question to
the eelctors at the April election,
1850. that was the only body that could be
looked to to ascertain whether the PROPOSE
ton had carried or not An elector voting
for Township officers at that election was no
less a member of the body to whom the
question of the ratification of the Constitu-
he had voted for or against the amendments.
He must be counted, and IL he did not vote
for the amendments he must be counted
against them, or else the Constitution
amounts to nothing.
Those who say that the electors who voted
for and against the amendments must be
considered the whole body to whom the
Court can look, seem to forget the incon-
sIstencies of such position. III the amend
ton, as was the case IN the Wabash and Erie
Canal amendment, this position would be
correct, for then the rule of evidence before
spoken of would apply. The return being
made OF all who voted at the elec>
ton, majority of the vote would
determine the question. But even
If these amendments had been sub
mitted at a separate election, il would not
have been sufficient to have returned the
vote for and against each separate amend
ment, if the rule laid down in the CoDstitu
ton is TO be observed. There would have to
be a return of the electors who voted at the
election on all or any of the amendments, so
that the aggregate number of ELECTORS of the
State could be determined by which to test
the result. Suppose the rule claimed by the
opponents of the decision of the Court
should be adopted, il would re-
suit in such absurdity as to
render decision on such basis ridIc ulous
Suppose we assume the submission OF the
late proposed amendments was at q separate
election. Now, the Constitution require
that each amendment shall be ratified by u
majority of the electors of the State. 1t is
conceded that this body is a certain number
of men, and certainlymust be held to be the
same number, on the same day, at the same
place, and voting on separate propositions
by the same ballot. Now, at the late cleo
ton on the proposed amendments, the fol :
lowing votes were cast on the sevaral
PROPOSITIONS: