The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-08
ANSWERING MIR. CHAMBERS.
w. II. Ripley's Argument for Change
in AppOrtiOnInent.

Warwick H. Ripley spoke at the Banner
Lincoln League last night, to controvert
Smiley n. Chamberss argument opposing
any present change in the .apportionment
law. Among other things Mr. Ripley said
'All legislative authority of the. State of
art. g. Sec. H. The State Constitution does
not define and grant the powers of the As
sembly. 1t defines no power or authority
except by the general term Legislative au-
thority.' However, it sets forth certain
limitations. 1t sets forth what authority
or power it cannot exercise. 1t cannot do
this. 1t cannot do that. But the Constitu-
ton never attempts to describe the power
or authority possessed by the Legislature
United States in this respect. That Con-
stitution confers upon Congress certain pow
1t shall have the power to do this. and
power to do that, and conferS upon Con-
gress some forty-five different specific pow
ers. Congress can only enact such laws
and exercise such functions may come
within the purview sofe the certain powers
.'The General Assembly of Indiana can
pass any law and exercise any legislative
authority, except what may come within
the exceptions In Congress il is the ex-
seption Which NH creates or au q the
ception which nullifies or vitiates the law.
Congress can do only what it is expressly
everything except what it Is expressly pro.
hbited from doing. A reasonable doubt
vii not Of be pc sneent ground v to ,nyadase
sufficient sometimes to invalidate a law of
Congress.
n1ent was decided by our Supreme Court
last June, in the case of ex parte Leach. ia
Indiana, 666. The question was Are women
entitled to admission 70 practice law, when
the Constitution only says that a person
being a votor shall be SO entitled The
iadge writing the opni9n tb Is
tuition, is as follows: Every person of good
moral character, being a voter, shall be en-,
courts of justice. Statute uses the same
terms.) The judge says: IT Will be OBJ
served that neither the Constitution nor the
statute is limitation upon the right of
membership. In each instance. as far
We have quoted. the right of the voter of
good moral character is secured We do not
doubt the right by the Constitution, or by
legislative enactment, to prescribe the quail
fications necessary to membership in the
of securing such membership; but what
now maintain is that neither from the Con-
stitution nor legislative enactment do we
find that women are excluded from such
membership. While voters of good moral
character are granted admission upon ap-
plicaton and proper evidence there is no
denial of such right to women If the right
is not denied by the Constitution and laws
of the State we should next inquire il it is
denied by that part of the common law
made. by the Constitution, a part of the
law of this State. We have searched in
vain for any expression from the common
law excluding women from the profession of
the law.
THE court then decides that women have
the right to be admitted to the practice
of the law because she is citizen. and
all citizens have the same, rights under the
law: voters having this right, she also may
have the right. Apply the construction by
the Supreme Court of Section q, Article
Z. TO Sections and of Article 4, and
we arrive at the following conclusion: Sec
tons and do not contain any limitation
upon the right and power of the Legislature
at any time to make an apportionment of
the State. when it is considered that prior
session has not done its duty in the matter.
while the Legislature at the first session
next following the period of making an
enumeration is granted fun power to make
an apportionment. there is no denial of such
right to the Legislature at any other SEES
stitution such right may be exercised by
the Legislature by virtue of its inherent
legislative authority. The cases in New
York State on this subject decide that when
the Legislature at its first session after the
census fails to make an apportionment the
power of the Legislature to so make an APP
portionment is continuing and the Legisla-
ture may so act at any of Its sessions. In
this State the Legislature at its first session
did act but acted in illegal and uncon-
stitutional manner. Such unconstitutional
action is equivalent to no action at all, con-
seauently the rule laid down by the New
York Supreme Court would apply. giving the
Legislature a continuing power TO act in
legal constitutional manner. And it is its
duty to act. The case is that of People
vs.. Rice, 135 N Y. 473."