The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-30
IN THE HOUSE.
Continuation of the Debate on the Amend
nlents


The Speak err commanded order, aud an
nounced prayer by the Rev. MIR. Pollet, of the
California Nj. Is. Chureh.
Mr.. Gordon moved that the House now go into
committee of the whole for the further consider
alton of the several reports from the judiciary
Al amendments, the motion was agreed to, and
Mr.. JewetJ took the chair.
Mr.. Williams. of Knox, obtained the floor and
said: Being the author of the resolution which
resulted In the several re ports from the judieia-
~ committee now before US for consideration, /
viii not enter upon as elaborate a review of the
subject as | had intended, for the reason that so
many members Nave and will take part in the
debate, that each of the points will be fully pre-
sented and thoroughly cauvassed, and my at
tempting 10 touch them all would be trespassi ng
upon the g00d nature of the House. Prior to the
close of the polls last November I was the can
didate of a political party and its representative.
Whe n the result of that election was declared |
became the representatives, not of one political
party or of the other, hut the representative OF
the whole people of my district in the General
Assembly. In my obligation to support the con
stitution, that obligation included every article
and section thereof. ThertEwas no mental res
e~ryation in that obligation in the case of article
l6 of the instrument in question. This instru-
ment is no mere temporary agreement entered
into to-day to he broken tomorrow. 1t is ordain-
ed by the voice of the people, and the voice OF
the people is the voice OF God. My county has
5000 voters. | received a petition signed by
less than one hundred voters. Ipersnnaly know
these men who signed it; they are honest, law
abiding citizens. Many of my personal friends
who would scorn to do q wrong thing, and had
they understood that they by signing that paper
were asking me to forget my oath ana commit
moral perjury, they would under no circuu-
stances have signed 1t. Understand me, I do
not mean TO say that ether gentlemen who see
ft TO vote for the Jewett-Frazier report VIII com
nit ueriurv. hur do saw IL wouid he ueriury
for ME to do SO, for the reason that
I believe in so doing, 1 would
If I could I would like to vote for submission.
Ii the prohibition amendment was in proper
condition to be submitted, l would be glad
to submit it.
Mr.. Williams continued at some length.
Mr.. Shively said II I should have consulted
my physical CONDITION to-day, L am sure L would
have remained silent. / take 1t, Mr.. Chairman,
that the suhject for discussion is a narrow one,
a plain one indeed. The whole question hinges
upon the construction we place upon the twelve
words in the constitution Gentlemen have con-
tended here that these amendments are invalid
because of the failure Ofthe clerk two years aro
to enter them upon the Journal; The gentle
man from Marion held that the word enter
meant but one thing and that was that they
should be entered III full. nave enGGavored In
the little time / nave given to this subject to hnd,
i'll could, what is the legal definition Of the
word enter. MIR. Shively hero read legal author
ity showing that the word had n double signtf-
cation, and that. it did not necessarily
mean to spread at largeL GsntlemeD
It has been referred to- often by almost every
member on the opposite side Of this House. But
! undertake to say that the constitution itself
settles this question. aud let us not 90 abroad
for light upon it. Here Mr.. Shively read GER
tain portions Of the constitutional When the
trainers of the constitution meanD that any
thing should be entered as ibrge, they said so,
leaving no room for doubt. L undertake to say
that this reading puts at rest forever the right
full construction of this language. If they meant
1t should be spread at large, why did they not
Say sol Gentlemen nave spoken of the wisdom
and learning of the constitutional trainers, and
JOIN with them In such praise. l undertake. TO
say that they understood the meaning OF the
word enter, and that when they meant 1t should
be entered at large, they carefully expressed 1t
so. | would call attention to the decisiOn Of the
Supreme Court of Kansas, and the gentlemen on
the other side have been very quiet about that
decision.
Mr.. Shively spoke at som length, citing au-
thOrities, etc.
Mr.. Price would not do the friends of the
amendments the injustice of voting to submit
said amendments to the people, believing that II
ratified by the people the Supreme Court would
have to. declare them null and void, and thereby
leave us in a similar condition with Iowa. The
nIain question is, are these amendments before
tins body strictly in accord with the provisions
of the constitution? The constitution SHALL he
my guide in voting on the reports now pending.
The people, so far as / am informed, do not de
sire 10 have the amendments submitted 10 them
if there is any doubt OF the legality of their CON
ditton.
MIR. Wilson, of Koseiusko, said: [ do not he.
lieve that the trainers of the constitution used
words of Doubtful meaning. 7 believe that when
they made that sixteenth article OF the cOnstitu-
ton they studied every word that entered into
it. It has been claimed here by gentlemen this
afternoon that this 10 simply a political question,
and that prohibition is II child Of Republican
birth and that it has not off it's swaddling cloths.
But 1 want them to show me a full-grown man of
Democratic origin. They claim the consistent
position upon this propOsltlOn. 1t is said that
constituency is q Jewel, hut I do not admit that 1t
Ia p Jewel IN this instance. The Republican
party never crosses n stream until IL comes to il:
but we find the Democratic party now construct
p%ontoOns to cross a stream before it comes to
canal amendment, the gentleman from
Knox (Mr. Wiliams) said 1t was all
right, though it was not ennStltlltidhally passed,
simply because the people Endorsed 1t. What
kind of logic is Ihala The gentleman on the
other side know that il they submit these amend
ments they VIII lose one faction Of their parry,
/ ana II they don't submit them they Will lose
another faction.
Mr.. GIBSON said: In the outset I had decided
not to say a word. admit that some gentlemen
have made very able arguments on this ques-
ton, that would have sounded very
wen before a court. I have said to myself, what
q benighted body this Legislature would have
been without any constitutional lawyers. In
my opinion a model Legislature would be a
legislature without II lawyer IN 1t. | acknnwl-
edge that there have seen very able discussions
on both sides of this question The only ques-
ton before us Is whether this provision OF the
constitution is mandatory or directory. YOu
must 90 back then to the decisions of the court
to see for yourself whether this question ia man
these gentlemen who have registered their
0aths in heaven are all men that
are against the legality of the constitutional
amendments. In my opinion. If there had been
no Iowa decision there would have been no ref
erence of TINS matter 10 the Judiciary committer,
and we would have adjourned without knowing
that we have here many constitutional lawyers.
I am sOrry thatthe gentleman who just preceded
me (Mr. Wilson. of Kosciusko) got "A little tingc
of politics In his arguments. I am sorry that lie
took that course. / am q Democrat from prin-
ciple. / am against prohibition from principle,
bnt it required quite n trial in my mind whether
l would decide for principle or for suffering hui
manity. Is it not better if this body sh0ald err
at all that it should be on the side of suffering
humanltyl have always been taught that If
You could find one case as n precedent in your
own State, it was worth a dozen in any other. 1
believe that il it had been a concurrent resOlu-
ton it would have been necessary to have spread
it at large upon the journals, because II concur-
rent resolution is not signed by the presiding OIL
GERS of the two houses. The amendment TO the
constitution passed two years ago W AZ not Il joint
resolution. IL was signed by the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the Fl tuse, and filed in
the office of the Secretary OF State, and when
that was done it was all that was necessary to
bring 1t before this House. The Supreme Court
of Indiana decided that if tho amendments are
signed by the Speaker of the House and the
President Of the Senate the cOurt does not tx
l nnnIn IL na.nnI u nnn uLonA. an Mt IL Ii