The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-12

an estoppeI in this case. ] will say TO
the learned counsel he will be damaged
in the attempt to establish an estoppel.
The last stated enumeration occurred in
1889. The Constitution says that the Gen.
eral Assembly at the session next follow
ing the period OF making an enumeration
shall make an apportionment. The learned
and excellent counsel says any session.
The Constitution says the first session.
Yet he holds there here is no collision. / do
not see how there could be a more rank
collision than there is between the Con-
Legislature OF that year act upon the sub
ject of apportionment? 1t was impossi-
BILE that they could act at that time they
had no power; no time, no power; no
Senator Turpie touched upon other sec
tons of the constitutional provisions as
TO the duties and powers OF other ofncers
OF the State. He said it provided the
Governor should be the commander-in-chief
of the militia Of the State and might call
it seemed necessary. He spoke OF the sec
ton fixing the Governors salary and said
the hei5lhturs might as well have Dsss tr aa
apportionment act at time other than at
the session next following the enumera-
ton. He covered the passage of laws by
the different legislatures since the forma-
ton of the new Constitution in 1851 and
said no attempt had ever been made 10
pass law of apportionment at other than
the fixed periods except in times OF emer-
gency, like that under which the act of
1893 was passed, just after the Supreme
court had held the aw OF 1s the
State without law under which an election
could be held and which rendered 1t i'm
perative Tor the session or 1873 10 pass "a
force no new one could be passed and he
held the assembly of 1895 had no author
1893 and der airing it unconstitutional. as
had been d~he.
APOLOGY FOR THE 1893 ACT.
ut is true, as my learned friend has
said," he continued. that the act of 1893
was passed at a time not following the
period of enumeration. but we call your
attention to the fact the act was passed
in an extreme emergency. The General AS
sembly of 1891 had failed to perform it's
duty. That made it imperative for them
to undertake to do it. They passed an act
which was by this honorable court declared
to be unconstitutional and void. When this
act was declared invalid the session had
gone out of Office and their successors
had been elected month before: 1t fol-
lowed when the General Assembly met
the State was without an apportionment
law The means for forming legislatures
must be perpetual. There were a few days
IN which we had no law for the election
necessary for them to act at once and per-
form the duty the Legislature of 1891 had
neglected. They performed that duty and
passed the act of 1893"
Senator Turpie then went into the ques-
ton of previous adjudication of this case.
He seemed to think the failure OF the
same parties TO prosecute former action
to a decision might act as bar to the
proceedings under consideration. He recited
the history of the case Of Wishard against
the clerks, sheriffs and auditors of the
State and said 1t had been dismissed with
out final adjudication. Mr.. Ketcham OBJ
jected to an expression from the Senator
to the effect that the record was under
considerations; he said he had been msun-
derstood and had said the record was in
the hands Of the court which must take
General Assembly of 1895 had recognized
the constitutionality Of the act of 1893 when
IL undertook to repeal that act. If the act
was unconstitutional. it was void and of no
effect and needed no repeal.
The Senator's argument had consumed
one hour and forty minutes. When he fin
ished ii was long past the noon hour and
an adjournment was taken until o'clock.