The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-06-23

rhsezpsnse otthu 6onssitation; and no con-
siderable adgRntass could compensate them
for a breach OF the fundamental law OF the
sdHis aHyy TS1ld pa late seoisop1of this
Court that the amendmsA u was Iatlleu ~ u
had TO be made in violation OF the Sonsutu-
This Court holds that il requh es at least aSt. a
majority OF all the votes cast &C the an'as,
V we also e b 5oithy fbs SSpStitn ut iss
Is defective In not providing for the coun> VI
the aggregate number OF votes cast through
out the STATE on the day OF the eleetion, or in
whole number OF votes cast by which II 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 amend
ment received majority OF all the votes cast
snbmitied UPON me ax Of t6s
elections throughout the State, and as there
were, by law, officers to elect at the same time
that other votes than those for or against
the amendment were cast at the same time
From the peculiar ballots used in voting upon
the amendment, many electors may have
voted mo" and "yes" upon the question OF the
amendment, which votes would not be count
ed; such also would be counted In estimating
the whole number of electors voting. 1t is also
held that the Constitution must remain as it
was before the amendment was Submitted,
until IL shall affirmatively appear that the
amendment is ratified. AS it does not thus
Automatically appear. we must hold that the
msjority. The opinion therefore. of this Court
is that IL requires majority of the electors of
the State to ratify an Amendment TO the Con-
stitution: but that the whole number of votes
cast at the election at which the amendment is
submitted may be taken as the humber OF
electors in the state. aUrl
The writer OF this opinion, speaking for him.
self only, holds that 1t requires the votes of a
majority OF the electors OF the State to ratify
a Constitutional amendment. He thinks that
this is not only the plain meaning OF the words
used In section ! OF article 10 of the COnstitu-
tion, but that it was also the manifest inten-
tion OF the trainers OF the Constitution, as
ascertained by the proceedings of the Conven-
tIon. He also holds that the number of electors
of state is public fact which the Courts
must ascertain, without averment or proof
whenever II Is necessary to the decision of a
cause. For this purpose a 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.
exact mum Der of electors of the State TO unit;
this is impossible, for the number, on account
of death and coming OF age, is not the same
during any twenty-four hours; and what is
To do is not required 10 be done.
The practical meaning of the phrase "all the
electors Of The state" is that substantial num-
Der who vote at general State elections and the
number of whose votes is 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 a sensi-
BILE application TO the affairs OF men, rather
history ola State, the number of inhabitants
and its official statistics are public facts known
to all persons and never need to be averred or
proved in judicial proceedings.
He also holds that, il 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 Leg
islative action, for the number cast might
he ar very inconsiderable proportion to the
whole number of electors in the State.
In the opinion of this Court the conse.
quence, SPOKEN of in argument, of this decis
ion can at most be but a temporary incon-
venience. We perceive o irregularity in the
proposal of the amendment for ratification.
IL has simply not been ratified, and not been
reJet ted. The vote upon it was ineff, ctual for
want OF the Constitutional majority. We see
no reason why the General Assembly may not
resubmit the amendment to the electors of
the State, under an amended act, such as eX-
perience may prove to be sufficient to present
the question TO the Courts II 1t ever should
arise again.
The Court below erred. We sustain the ap
peal az the costs of the appellee
Niblack, j., and Scott, j., dissent, and will
prepare dissenting opinions hereafter.