The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-26
The Constitutional Provision

Ihe constitutional Provision Complied with.
But these amendments entered on the
journals. Entry does not mean to spread at large.
Indeed, the original amendments proposed could
not he spread at large upon the journals. II the
Intention had been to spread them at length the
constitution would have provided that q copy
should he spread at large on the journals. To
enter them is TO make such reference TO them
upon the Journals that we can see from the jour
mails what the action of the Legislature was. and
that sufficient means of Identification are afford
ed us as the resolutions referred to. These
resolutions are numbered, entitled and snffci-
emily identified. The enrolled joint resolutions
contain the same title. the same numbers and the
same description The journals show that no
other joint resolutions with these numbers aud
titles were passed or adopted, and the enrolled
joint resolutions show that these resolutions
were so adopted; otherwise they would not he
authenticated by the presiding officer of each
house. Can we doubt the identity OF the resolu
tiOns or of the amendments therein onntained2
document referred to in a pleading, or writ
ten instrument of any kind ia rs much
part OF il as il the copy had been spread
at length in the place where the reference is
made. This is a familiar principle of law. Can
We then say that tho amendments are not ell
tered upon the journals? 1t is said that the
signing of these Joint resolutions does not alI-
thenticate the amendments, because the amend
ments are not required to he signed nor to be in
troduced by joint resolution or bill, but the
question is not must they 0e so introduced, but
may they be SO introduced. If there is pro-
hihitiOn, it will not he seriously commended
that the will of the General Assembly may he
expressed in this form, and if 1t is so expressed
then the law provides that it snail he authenti-
Gated by the signatures OF the presiding officers.
The provision OF the constitution was undoubt-
eddy made to remedy defect in case the amend
ments were not introduced by bill or joint
luton, so 1t might be necessary to enter them
upun the Journals in such way that their
Authorization shonld appear from the journal
itself 1t is said the object Of this provision is
the preservation of the exact language, but Is
not that as well preserved in the enrolled bill
upon the iournall The case in 80 Ind. holds
that the enrolled bill is a superior mode of au-
thenticatiOn and preservation.
But the exact question presented has been de-
cided i'll three cases: The recent Iowa decision,
where 1t is held that the provision as TO entry
upon the journals is mandatory and its omission
fatal; tho prOhibitory liquor case decided in the
Supreme Court of Kansas (See 81 Kansas. ZOO,
where the same exact question is decided the
other way, and the decision of the Legislature of
tins State which. acting in reference to us
jurisdiction, must be regarded as court and,
the senator from jackson insists, court of eX-
elusive jurisdiction, and which as a precedent is
binding upon s,acttng q similar tribunal in an
exactly similar emergency. The other two eases
arguments this is an authority. Unless
clearly satisfied that 1t is wrong in principle, we
are bound to follow it.
The amendments were precisely in the same
condition as those passed by the last Legsla-
ture. At the opening of the special session in
1872, when these amendments came before the
second General Assembly, the fact that the
amendments had not been srread upon the
journals had been discovered and called to the
attention of Governor B tker who, in his mes
sage to the General Assembly, called their atten-
ton to tho fact. Printed Journals will show that
the yeas and nays were called and recorded
the passage of the Joint resolution in both
houses; that ii passed the Senate by II vote OF As
yeas to nay; that 1t passed the House by
unanimous vote, ninetY-three members voting
for and none AGAINST it. The JOINT resolution
duly enrolled, signed by the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Repre
sentatives, ana Is deposited in tho office OF the
Secretary of State and was printed and pub
lished with the laws passed at the same session.
Under these circumstances, | am clear in the
sprpad he IN an
ment at large on the Journals does not Vitiate IT,
be- entered on the Journals, IT. indeed, it means
that IL shall be copied at full length. is. at the
most, only directory and not mandatory. and
consequently the amendment, IL passed by the
present General Assembly and ratified by tine
people, will be valid part of the constitution.
The senator from Jackson mfr Brown in "a re-
matter was not then debated or considered in the
General Assembly. | would like to call his at
tention to the arguments made by himself in
regard TO II, rs contained on pages 80 and 80 of
the BREWER Reports for that year "Mr Brown
said that for some strange and singular reason,
to him entirely unknown, one of the planest
disregarded on the part of the secretary of the
Senate AMI the clerk of the House of Repre-
sentatives. Neither of these gentlemen seemed
TO understand that it was their duty to spread
this amendment, with the yeas and nays
thereon, upon the journals OF each house. This,
for ia time, Was Thought to he "A great misfortune
to the state, hut on investigation we find that
part OF the constitution merely advisory.
The Supreme Court has decided that the enrolled
copy lodged with the Secretary of State, having
upon 1t tue signatures of the presiding officers
of both houses, ia hiR her character of evidence
than tho Journals of either or buth houses, and
that sound and sensible decision saves this cou
stitutiOnal amendment, If the State makes
further hluuders."
|. Aud the joint resolution was accordingly pass
ed. Now, The senator from Jackson is high au-
thoiity On these matters. The only question is