The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-05-22

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal
There is a statement in the Journal of
Saturday last that two Of the amendments
to the State Constitution, which were agreed
to at the last session of the General AS
sembly, had the same number as they ap-
pear at the office of the Secretary of State
and the suggestion IS made that this num-
bering will defeat both of the proposed
amendments. The amendment providing for
an increase in the number of judges of the
supreme Court was introduced in the SEN
ate Jan. 10, 1895, and No. / of joint
resolutions on the Senate calendar. The
other amendment was introduced in the
House Feb. 10. 1895, and was No. of the
joint resolutions on the House calendar
The numbers of bills or joint resolutions
are no part OF the bill or resolution and
while they are pending before the General
Assembly. In some of the amendments that
have heretofore been proposed the follow
ing resolution has been added TO each
+. Resolved, That in submitting the amend
ment to the electors, of the State to be
voted on it shall be designated amend
ment No. -" facts of regular session,
PIP. 159 to 1913. inclusive; all acts of 1891, p.
isi TO 4s6, inclusive, where several amend
ments were agreed to-
This practice is not required by the Con-
stituton at all (see Sec. and of article Is
of the Constitution) and has not been uni
form. In the acts of 1871 p. 81 and 90. where
an amendment was proposed as TO the debt
charged upon the Wabash and Erie canal,
no number was given it by resolution and
none was given IL in the law submitting
il TO a vote OF the people. (Acts of reg
The General Assembly of 1879. after agree
ing to the proposed amendments of the ses-
sion of 1877. passed law submitting them
to the qualihed voters of the state, which
was done in said election, as follows:
Sec. 2; The Secretary of State shall pro
shall be printed the proposed amendments.
and below each amendment shall be printed
line the word No. etc.
The act further provided that if the
voter desires vote for either amendment
he shall strike out the word mo" under
each proposed amendment. and If he de-
sires TO vote against IL, then he shall strike
out the word Yes" The vote taken on the
amendments originating in 1877 under the
law of 1879. was held to be an invalid cleo
ton. (The State VS.. Swift, 50 Ind, 50i to
54S)
The same amendments were again sub
mitted to the qualified voters Of the State,
by law passed by the General Assembly
in 1881. tActs of 1881, PIP. 20 TO s. inclusive.l
The manner of voting under the act of
1881 was substantially the same as under
printed on the ballot and the voters in
dorsed or rejected each proposed amend
ment it's merits as they occurred to hum
and did not vote for or against them to
their numbers.
lit is presumed that the authors of the
two amendments referred to in the state
ment in your paper of 18th inst, followed
the precedents in the proposed amendme nts
their proposed amendments by resolution,
for which there is no necessity whatever.
has nothing az all 10 do with nc action
come to act upon them. and nothing to do
with the action of the voters of the State
if the proposed amendments should be sub
mitted 10 them for adoption or rejection
Kokomo, Ind, May 20.