The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-23

courts is prepared for anarchy with all its at
tendant evils and dreadful consequences.
We may, perhaps, be excused if, i'll the in
terest of social order and public security
and Prominence of republican institutions,
we enter most earnest protest against her
estes which have been advanced in this case.
CASES CITED
The court then refers to cases cited by APP
pellant-13 Peters, Ala; Blatchford u; -
Wallace, GAG, and others-and points out
where they differ from the case at bar. The
court quoted from IS Pennsylvania State, as
applicable here-that there are but three
known modes by which the whole people,
the State, can give their assent to an altera-
ton of the existing lawful form Of govern
ment First the mode provided in the ex
listing constitution; second, constitutional
convention; third, revolution. The people
are under an organized government and they
cannot change it unless in an authorized
manner. No heresy has ever been taught in
this country so fraught with evil as the
doctrine that people have a constitutional
right to disregard the constitution. 1t tends
to revolution and anarchy. 1t is incumbent
upon all who influence and mould public
opinion to repudiate so dangerous doctrine
before it bears fruit destructive of Repub
lcan institutions.
The court then says the authority without
conflict is that not only must the consttu-
ton be amended in the manner prescribed in
the existing constitution, bat it is competent
for the courts to inquire whether, in the
adoption of the amendment, the provisions
of the existing constitution have been OBJ
served The voice of the people can only be
of legal force when expressed i'll the manner
pointed out by themselves in their constitu-
IA
ties in support of this doctrine
The second question raised was that the
Judgment of the Nineteenth General Assem-
bly, on the proceedings of the Eighteenth Gen
eral Assembly are conclusive and cannot be
reviewed. On this point the court discusses
all the authorities cited by counsel and say,
in their opinion the question involved in the
case at bar does not fall within the principle
laid down by such authorities. Having
disposed of this question, the court shows
wherein the provisions of the consttu-
ton relating to its amendment were
not complied with. 1t was claimed in the
argument that certain papers produced cured
the defects shown by the records of the Leg
islature. The records are the ultimate and
conclusive proof of proceedings of the Legis-
| lature. 1t would be startling doctrine in
deed if it should be held that the journals of
the General Assembly could be contradcted
by papers produced upon the street three
will not permit his name to be disclosed and
whom the court is not permitted to know.
We might well tremble for the permanencv
of our constitution if such proceeding could
be sanctioned. 1t is a matter of the greatest
regret that the paper should have been
brought in this case, so clearly not entitled
to legal consideration. and which could have
no other effect than to further inflame and
excite an already excited and inllamed pub
lie mind. IT all obstacles in the way of sus-
tanning the amendment already considered
could be overcome there are still others in
the way likely to be unanswerable.
THE FORMER DECISION REAFFIRMED.
In concluding the opinion the court says:
Placing the most liberal construction upon
the provision of the constitution under con-
sderation of which it is susceptible, we
think that it requires at least that entries
upon the journals shall show the terms of
the amendment submitted. This is not
shown upon the journals either of the Senate
or House of the Eighteenth General Assem-
bly,. We have approached and discussed this
grave question with full appreciation of
the responsibilities which it involves, and we
have given to its consideration the earnest
attention which its importance demands.
We have sought to maintain the supremacy
of the constitution at whatever hazards 1t
is for the protection of minorties
that constitutions are framed. Some
times constitutions must be interposed
for the protection of majorities
even against themselves. Constitutions are
adopted in times of public repose, when sober
Reason holds her citadel, and are designed to
check the surging passions in times OF nopu-
lar excitement but if courts could be coerced
by popular majorties into disregard of
their provisions, constitutions would become
mere ropes of sand and there would be an
end of social security and constitutional free
dom. The cause of temperance can sustain
no injury from the loss OF this amendment
which would be at all comparable to the in
jury to republican institutions which a vio-
lation of the constitution would inf1ict.
That large and respectable class of moral
reformers which so justly demands observ-
ance and enforcement OF law cannot afford to
take its first reformatory step by violation of
constitution. How can il consistently demand
of others obedience to constitution which
it violates itself. The people can in q short
time re-enact the amendment. In matter
of great moral reform few years is nothing.
The constitution is the palladium of republic
can freedom. The young men coming for
ward upon the stage of political action must
be educated to venerate it, Those already
upon the stage must be taught to obey it.
Whatever interest may be advanced or may
suffer, whoever or whatever may be voted up
or voted down, no sacrilegious hand must be
laid upon the constitution Abdingly and
firmly convinced OF the correctness of our
FORMER conclusion, recognizing no superior
higher than the constitution, acknowledge
ing no fealty greater than loyalty
to its principles and fearing no consequences
except those which would flow from a dere-
LECTION in duty, we adhere to and reatfirm
the doctrines already announced. The petit
ton for rehearing is overruled.
Mr.. Justice Sewers, although unable TO be
present at this time by reason of sickness.
has consulted with us upon all the points
involved in the case, and is fully in accord
with us upon all the positions of the forego-
ing opinion.
Justice Beck delivered a strong dissenting