Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-06-19
INDIANA.
AN OCTOBER STATE,


INDIANAPOLIS, June 18-The supreme court
this morning overthrow the constitutional
amendment changing the time of holding the
elections for State officers from October to the
second Tuesday in November. The opinion of
the court was rendered by Judge Bidell, Judges
Hawke and Warden concurring Judge Niblock
dissenting. The opinion is very long and re-
views the history of the act fully, closing as
follows: This court finds that it requires at
least q majority of all the votes at the same
election to ratify constitutional amendment.
We also hold that as the act of March 10th,
1879, is defective in not pro-
viding for the count of the aggregate
number of votes cast throughout
the State on the day of election, or in not pro-
viding some means to find out the whole num-
Der of votes cast, by which it might be learned
what proportion the number cast in favor of
the ratification bore to the whole number
there is no source from which this court can
ascertain whether the amendment received
majority of all the votes cast at the election or
not. As the amendment was submitted on the
day of the general spring election throughout
the State, and as there were, by law, officers to
elect at the same time in the various counties,
it must be presumed that other votes than
those for or against the amendment were
cast at the same time From the peculiar bal
lots used in voting upon the am endment many
electors may have voted mo- and "yes' upon
the question Of amendment, which votes would
not be counted. Such also would be counted
in estimating the whole number of electors
voting.
It is also held that the constitution must re-
main as it was before the amendment was sub
mitted until it shall afirmatiyely appear that
the amendment is ratified. As it does not
thus affirmatively appear, we must hold that
the amendment is not ratified by cCnstitu-
tional majority. The opinion, therefore,
of the court, is that it Ie-
quires majority of the electors
of the State to testify an amendment to the
constitution, but that the whole number of
votes cast at the election at which the Samend-
ment is submitted, must be taken as the num-
ber of electors in the State. The writer of this
opinion, speaking for himself, holds that it re-
quires the votes of majority of the electors of
State to ratlfy constitutional amendment.
He thinks that this is not only the plain mean
ing of the words used in section of article 10,
of the Constitution, but that it was the mani
fest intention of the framer of 1.-THE constitution
as ascertained by the proceedings eof the con-
vention. He also holds that the number
of a electors of State is a public
fact which the courts must ascertain
without averment OF proof, whenever it is
necessary to decision of the cause; for this
purpose, court may look to the archives of
the State to the official returns of general
State elections, to the Legislative action and
the proclamations of the executive. He does
not mean that court must know the exact
number, rs accounts of death or of coming of
age is not the same during any twenty four
hours, and what is impossible to do is not re-
quired to be done. The practical meaning of
the phrase ''all The electors of
the State is that substantially the
number who vote at general
State election aud the number whose votes are
officially returned by sworn officers into the
Office of the secretary of state. This number
need not necessarily include electors who are
sick, absent from the State, or prevented from
going to the polls. The construction must be
such as has sensible application to the affairs
of men, rather than one of abstract numbers
on theory. The history of State, the number
of inhabitants and its official statistics are pub
lie facts known to all persons and need to be
averred or proved in judicial proceedings.
He also holds that if the whole number Of
votes cast at given election should be less
than the whole number of the electors of the
State thus interpreted the latter number being
the constitutional guide. would govern the
former. Having only the authority of legisla-
tive Sction for the number cast, it might bear a
very considerable proportion to the whole num-
ber of electors in the State.
In the opinion of this court the consequence