The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-30

the question being on tue motion 10 adopt the
majority report.
Mr.. Ristine said:
Mr.. President-The majority report says there
is nn entry upon the journal of either house by
which your tee can determine what Peso-
lutions were proposed as amendments by the
last General Assembly.
The journals DO show that Joint resolution No.
was proposed and agreed to in both houses.
Each step can be traced until lt was properly
attested by the presiding office of each house
and then lodged with the Secretary Of State.
There is no copy on the journals of either house,
but there is tie original resolution, properly
attested, which is certainly a higher grade Of
evidence,
II the copy would inform us of the contents
of the resolution the original must do the same.
The trainers Of the constitution could nat have
intended that the copy shall be the sole means of
finding what was done by the last General As
sembly.
In 80 Ind. 5l4, it is said, 'such Journals. it is
notorious, are and must be made in haste, IN the
confusion of business, and are often Inaccurate"
etc. [QuOted further.l
The enrolled resolution is the best evidence of
what was done by the last General Assembly,
and being such, furnishes all, and more than an
entry ON The journals could supply.
The law as stated in 30 Ind, had been the law
of this state for more than three years, when
The Legislature of this State was first confronted
with this question.
In 1872 the chief executive of the State found
a proposed amendment in the precise condition
in which the amendments to-day are found.
He reported that fact to the Legislature. The
executive office was hlled by an eminent lawyer
both houses had able lawyers. The case was
nOb unlike the preHtnT, except IN tlls. Iner6
was no political bias or prejudice to warp the
Judgment OF the execu tive or legislative depart
nenrs of the government, and at such a time,
under such circumstances the amendment was
passed through tins sUageof its adoption, con-
STRUNG the language Of our constitution and
defining what was meant by the words "entered
on the journals" The case, as then, was purely
q legal one.
The first action taken upon this resolution in
1872 was to refer 1T to the judiciary
of the Senate. Some time afterward ii was re-
ported upon by that committees. In the debate
greatest caution should be Observed-Uhat no
haste should be made. This committee reminded
the Senate what large interests were involved to
the State. Another question was raised as to
whether the original should not be brought
from the office of the Secretary Of State aud
passed, ana upon this the resolution Was again
sent to the committee.
The action then taken upon this legal question
when it was new iii this State and when re-
ceiving close attention, was the same as that
adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, and in
accord with the long list of authorities which
have been cited. 1t received the assent and the
vote of every lawyer and every member of each
house (save Onel, and so far as [ can find, he
SAID nothing against the legal proposition sub
mitted by the judiciary COMMITTEES.
After this the amendment was submitted to
the voters OF the State and ratified, and then u
succeeding Governor declared it adopted as a
part of the constitution of the State.
1t thus became a part of the constitution of
the State. Every branch of the government and
all the people of the State accepted 1t as such,
and by no one has it ever been called in ques-
tfon.
Is there no authority in this, and ne weight to
be given to the construction thus placed upon IL
by the power authorized to coustrue itl
The Legislature was then bound to place n
construction upon the words now under consid-
Grafton, and it did so. The pending amendment
was made a part Of the constitution. What
higher authority can there be than this, the
methods which have heretofore ATTAINED in
amending the constitution
Mr.. Marvin should vote for the minoriiy re-
port. for the reason that the joint resolution No.
z IS NOT before the Senate properiy-it ought to
be- He Knew tuAttWO years ago lG was reported
from the House 10 the Senate; that it passed the
Senate by &c vOtes, and that it is now upon the
statute books. He should not by his vote allow
the neglect Of employees OF the Senate, iguO-
rantly or intentionally, to deprive his constitu-
ency of that which they want. He should vote
for the minority report for the reason that
5000 or 4, 900 voters of his district have peJi-
toned for an amendment to the constitution
that shall prohibit the manufacture or sale OF
ardent spirits as a beverage. The place OF a
Representative OF the people is a very sacred
trust. This is a representative government.
and representing IL, 600 voters, he held il makes
no difference what his ideas or his desire of law
or proposition is, if hts people desire n law IL is
his duty to vote for it. He is aDemocrat, aud
believes IN the great Democratic principle that
the representative should vote The will Of his
constituency, for those measures which bring
the g~reatess good to the greatest number; and
that is another reason why he should vote for
TINS amendment. and il an opportunity offers he
should vote Co submit it to the people for rabit-
cation Mt the next general election.
Mr.. Mcclure was very sorry that these pro-
posed amendments are not found correctly
spread upon the Journals of the two houses.
according 70 the requirements OF the c%onstitu-
ton, though standing to-day, as he did two
years ago in the other branch of the General
Assembly, opposed to these constitutional
amendments. He had listened with interest to
the Of senators, and had been greatly
edited by their legal disquisitions. The ques-
tlon upon which tile decision of this subject
hinges on the rendition of the word ''shalP' in
the constitution. In our sim plicity in the use of
the English language, when we who have
heretofore engaged in legislation employed or
used the word "ShalP' in the laws, we consider
that Term IMPERATIVE, OBLIGATORY, etc. etc.
EndeavOrtng to sit as a Juror having a part in
the ~iectsion of this question:. his present con-
vIctiOns are that giving a true construction to
the constitution, these amendments are not
properly before the Legislature; and, though
open TO conviction even to the last words
said on this subject, he expected TO support the
majority report OF the Judiciary committee.
Mr.. Henry's excuse for saying anything upon
this question was itsimpOrtanee, attracting as it
does most earnest attention from all parts of the
State--a question fraught with great interest.
not only upOn the immediate point involved, but
upon the effect it will have hereafter in THIS
State upon what shall constitute a sufficient
transaction as to the mode and manner of sub
hitting Constitutional amendments. He in
tended TO give his views in n few words. The
constitutional provisions, article 10, sections L
and ., are directory and MOI mandatory. The
only other provision of the kind in the constitu-
ZION is where 1t requires when "A bill Is vetoed
that the objections OF the Governor shall be en-
tered at large upon the journals. There is not
much of "a difference between the two, but the
difference IS significant. The same question be-
ing discussed now was presented TO the Legisla-
luTelH 1917. luab WAS no 1901 Legislature. An
examination of the journals and the Brewer Re
ports will show the question was fully, fairly
and %eandidly discussed and decided according to
law, and it is scarcely worth while to discuss
thar proposition much longer. From all over
the State of Indiana there have come up petit
tons from over AZ. 800 voters asking that these
amendments be submitted to a vote of the peo-
pie, and not only that, but that they shall be sub
United at a special election.
Mr.. Mcintosh said at the time he was nomi-
mated to represent the counties of Greene ana
Daviess in the Senate he promised, at the request
of several friends, that II elected he would vote
TO agree To the constitutional amendments. He
repelled the insInuatiun that any effort has been
made by Democratic senators, either in or ont of
a caucus, to control any Democratic votes In the
Senate. As far as the legal question is con-
cerned, the lawyers on both sides of the Senate
stood as they do upon the main question-a sin
eular commentary upon the Judgment and con-