The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-20

said The Senate journal by the
provisions of the constitution is made the
primary evidence of the contents OF the
resolution as it passed the Senate. This
journal is in existence, and, as has been said,
was Kept as required by the constitution.
Now we are asked to ignore this amend
ment and receive parole evidence, or ascer-
tain for ourselves by inquiry of those who
are supposed to know as to the existence of
a fact which is contradictory to the journals
kent, certified to-, and preserved by sworn
officers as provided by law. To our mind
this is a startling proposition. 1t ignores
fundamental rules which have always ex-
listed. Parole evidence never can be intro
duced or considered when there is written
evidence of any fact which can be produced
If the Journals had been lost or destroyed it
is possible that We could and should resort to
the next best evidence attainable. If there
was any written evidence in existence resort
we presume, would first be had to that. Ii
there was none such, it may be parole evil
dence should be regarded as competent. But
it is useless to speculate The constitutional
evidence is before us, and by that we are
bound. 1t was suggested in argument that
the journals OF both houses of the General
Assembly are written and kept by clerks.
and that this duty is carelessly performed,
and, therefore, cannot be relied on as accu
RATE.
The rules adopted by each house requires
day shall be read in the presence OF the mem
bers thereof on the morning of the succeed
ing day. 1t is said such reading is frequently
dispensed with. This is believed to be true,
but this can be done only with the consent
of the House The journal of the Senate OF
the Eighteenth General Assembly, however,
shows that it was read on the morning OF
the day after the proposed amendment was
adopted by the Senate. Now, if the words
cor to be used" were stricken out by com
mon consent, or otherwise, is it not exceed
ingly strange no member called attention to
the fact that the journal failed to so show?
Can or should it be presumed the members
of the Senate failed to perform their duty?
If the words aforesaid were stricken out by
common consent, or by any action OF the
Senate, it is clear the journal should show it,
under the circumstances and in accord with
the universal rule. If necessary, should not
the presumption be INDUCED that every Off
Ger or other person does that which by
law he is enjoined to do? 1t is true the
journals are written and kept by clerks, but
they are sworn officials who perform their
duties under direction OF the respective
houses of which they are officers. The records
and proceedings OF all courts are kept by
clerks under the direction of the court and
they impart absolute verify in the absence OF
fraud Why, therefore, should not the inn
port of the journals be the same? Especial
ly should this be so held when the constitu
to the constitution must be entered on the
journals of not one house only, but both.
The joint resolution, as we have seen, was
first agreed to by the House and sent to the
Senate and there substitute was adopted
which was returned to the House, and agreed
to by it. 1t was not enrolled by the officers
or clerks of the Senate under the supervision
of that body, but by the enrolling clerk OF
the House, under the supervision OF
a committee of that body. It was no
doubt correctly enrolled as it passed the
House. But whether it had passed the
Senate in the same form depends on the
question whether the secretary of the Senate
reported to the House the same resolution
which had passed the Senate. Here there is
a great liability to mistake. Besides this the
enrolling is the act of q clerk, under tine SUI
pervision of committee composed of, we be-
leve, two members of the House or
Senate This clerk and committee might
make a mistake in enrolling the res
olution. They are as liable to do so
as the secretary of the Senate in keeping the
journal under the direction and supervision
OF the whole body OF senators. The argu-
ment, then, that the enrolled resolution is
better evidence of what the Senate did than
the journal, because more likely to be accu
rate falls to the ground. Each General AS
sembly is independent and supreme as the
law-making power within the limits pre-
scribed by the constitution The last Cen
eral Assembly that convened may uhdo all
that its predecessors may have done, but can
not, so to speak put words into the mouth
OF any OF its predecessors Inc constitution
provides that all political power Is inherent
in the people (arucie 1 sectlon y Whlle
this is So the constitution is a limitation on
such power. me power OF the people can
only be exercised through the executive, legis-
lative and judicial departments OF the gov
ernment, unless chan@e IN the constltu-
ton through convention CONSTITUTES an eN-