The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-24

popular action which Is principally 70 be
considered in determining whether a on
stitutional amendment has been adopted
Nothing could track more closely the
argument made by the Journal with respect
to constitutional amendments than this
language. 1t is in harmony with the
declaration by Robert Dale Owen in the
constitutional convention, that in
statutory law the Legislature shall take the
full responsibility OF the acts they are
competent to perform. But with the organic
law it rs a different matter. That we do not
propose 10 leave in the power OF the Legisla-
ture.' The Kansas court then proceed to
show the uniform practice of the Legislature
of that State in the submission of amend
ments, and show that it was followed in the
case OF the prolrbitory~ amendment, and then
say;
Surely in all this, there is an interpreta-
ton OF the language OF the constitutional
which may not be ignored. Words and
phrases by use and acquiescence ofttimes
acquire a meaning beyond their natural
import. A man may bind him
self by habitual use of any
signature, and repeated use by
succeeding Legislatures OF any word or
phrase in any restricted or enlarged sense
compels a judicial recognition of that sense.
Here, also, may appropriately be noticed the
fact that the past tells the same story of
omission from the legislative journals of the
full text of the proposed amendment. + 8 =
Many amendments have gone before the
people, been adopted and acted upon as
parts of the constitution when only the title,
scope and object can be found upon the jour
nails"
Here is the same principle observed as in
the low case, to which We have before al
luded. In Iowa the Legislature has construed
the constitutional provision to mean that the
amendment must be entered at length upon
the journals, and the majority of the court
followed that precedent. In Indiana the
precedent is the other way. Our Legislature
has given repeated constructions of the pro-
vision, and that construction cannot be ig-
nored by the courts. The Kansas court indi-
cate what would be the effect of a judicial
Interpretation differing from that given by
the Legislature, and says:
eff we were to hold that form insufficient,
WiHdt USCOiiico VI THESE various entertainments
THE ones heretofore adopted and incorpo-
rated into the constitution. Will it not
unsettle all that for nearly a decade
has been accepted and acted upon
as sufficient? Unsettling them, will not
all legislation, all conduct, all rights
based thereon fail, and the general order and
peace stand in confusion? Counsel saws no,
because there has been general acquiescence
in the results of such elections, both legisla-
tive, executive ana judicial recognition of
the validity OF these amendments. Hence
all %irregularity and informality have been
waived, But the question necessarily arises,
if such acquiescence and recognition are suf-
ficient to support these amendments do
they not support the form of submission as
well as the result of the election? Is it not
a legislative and popular Interpretation of
the scope and import of the language used in
the various acts of submission
Here is the whole question. The fore,
most things in constitutional amendments
in Indiana are the agreement of two success
sive Legislatures aud the popular Affirmation.
AS Governor Porter said in his message, athe
essential thing for the second Legislature
is to have before 1t the genuine proposition
passed by the first Legislature. Is an omis-
sion OF a clerk of one or both of the houses
to defeat a substantial right of the Legisla-
ture aud of the people2 The curren: of pre-
cedent in this State is in perfect harmony
with the proceedings respecting the pending
amendments thus far. To change that current
now is for courts to ignore a solemn inter-
probation placed upon the constitution by the
Legislature and the Executive. and is to inn
peril all the amendments thus far incorpor-
ated into the constitution.
II any one cares to have further reading
from a Supreme Court upon whether techni-
cal errors and omissions should be allowed to
take from the people substantial rights, let
preme Court, rendered two years since, writ
ten by Justice Libbey, an old and honored
Democrat, and which cut through the
sophisms of the celebrated "Garcelon steal"
as does a shaft of lightning through the
murky atmosphere and heavy clouds of a
stormy day. The Journal called attention to
the Libbey decisions when first Mr.. Nc
Donald put his sign manual to the Great
Rice Discovery, the object of which was to
permit the Democracy to continue their
double shuttle with the constitutional amend
ments. The people will penetrate all their
DISCUSSES and pretexts.
"
DECLARING acts OF the legislative depart
ment of the government. to be unconstitu-
tional is not the light and fippant thing so