The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-07-01
A NEW CONSTITUTION.

their record on everything else. In 1881, less
than four years ago, in his message
to the State Legislature, Col. Isaac
P. Gray, then acting as Governor, earnestly
recommended to the General Assembly the
calling Of convention to frame new organic
law. He said
ut is nearly thirty years since the present
| Constitution Of the State was adopted during
which time the State has increased in popula-
ton from less than 000 600 to nearly q 000 600.
The increase in wealth and business has been
equally great. In view of the fact that some
of its provisions have become obsolete and
that experience under it has suggested many
important changes and amendments, recon-
mend the calling of constitutional convention,
believing that to be the best mode of revising
the organic act Of the State / would further
recommend that the convention consist of fifty
members, chosen from the senatorial districts
Ibelieve the body would be large enough, and !;
with the old Constitution before them as a
guide, many of the provisions of which would
undoubtedly be incorporated in the new, the
sitting of the convention need not necessarily
be protracted for any considerable length of
time
This was fat-footed and direct. In harmol
ny with Acknowledgements Gray's recon-
mendatien, Senator Jason B. Brown intro
duced bill in the Senate providing for a
constitutional convention, and in company
with Senator Bell, of Allen county, advocated
the measure in a set speech. In the
Brewer Reports of the. legislative session Of
1881, on page lbs, can be found Senator
Browns speech, and on page 140 of the same
report can be seen the argument of Senator
Bell. The bill did not pass, but the reasons
for the calling of constitutional convention
were so urgent, and had been so powerfully
presented to the people Of the State by the
Democratic Governor and by those Democratic
senator's that Senator Spann, Of Rush, in the
last Legislature, reintroduced the bill, almost
identical with that introduced two years be-.
fore by Senator Brown. But within the two
years the temper and disposition Of the Demo-
cratic party had changed, and they neither
supported nor voted for the proposition of Mr.
Spann. The Republican convention, in de-
claring in favor of a convention to frame a
new Constitution, is not only in harmony
with the action of Republican repre-
sentatives in the last General Assembly, but
has the very highest Democratic authority for
the proposition. The necessities for a new
Constitution IN 1884 S are as great, certainly,
as they were in 1901, or in 1928. The
lapse Of time has not improved the old Con
stitution, nor impaired the force of the
reasons why new organic law should be
framed. There are many and powerful argu-
ments for new Constitution, recognizing
which the Republican party proposes that the
people shall have the opportunity to readjust
their fundamental law to the new and en-
larged conditions in which the State finds
itself, after the lapse Of more than third Of a
century and the addition Of fully one million
Of people to its population.
Why do the Democrats now oppose the call
of a constitutional conyention7 Let Mr.
English answer, in the language of his re-
markable platform, adopted by the party in
State convention:
1--WE are opposed to calling a convention
to alter and amend the Constitution Of this
State. The present Constitution \
needs no tinkering with at the present time,
especially in the interest of any party seeking
to invade the rights of private property and
personal liberty now secured by the Constitu-
ton. We are opposed to any change in
the Constitution, or to any legislation
which unjustly interferes with their
personal liberty as to what they shall eat OF
drink, OF as to the kind Of clothing they shall
wear. We are opposed to any CON
stitutional amendment relating to the subject
of the manufacture and sale Of Intoxicating
and malt liquors
We have pulposely omitted alot of what the
News properly calls rot but the above gives
the bone and sinew Of the two resolutions Of
the Democratic platform opposing new Con
stitution, The Democratic party has changed
front on this question entirely; it has slapped
its candidate for Governor in the face, and
two Of its most prominent members and State
senators, simply and solely to curry favor
with the Liquor League, and to show again to
the makers and sellers Of whisky that neither
opinion, nor judgment, nor argument MOI
party record, nor Governors message, MOI
senatorial speeches nor any other thing shall,
for one moment, stand in the way Of Their
triumphant and certain domination in the
Democratic party. At the behest Of the
whisky power, two years ago, the Democratic
party declared against the right Of the
people to vote upon constitutional
amendment; It blasphemously outraged the
reverend feelings Of every respectable man,
whether Christian or not by asserting that
the Savior Of men was the head and front Of