The Indianapolis journal., 1895-03-15
CONSTITUTIONAL. REFORM.


The Journal prints in another column
comments from some of the State pa
pers on it's proposed amendment of the
Constitution relative to the term of the
General Assembly and methods of Iegis-
lation. The proposed amendment was
suggested as a remedy for certain de-
fects of the present system, and. as it
was believed, a step toward better legis-
lation on a line in harmony with the
principles of popular government. Briefly
stated, the Journals plan would substi-
tute moderate annual salaries for the
present per diem mode of compensating
members of the General Assembly, thus
removing all temptation to prolong the
session or force an extra session for
the sake of the pay involved. 1t would
further provide for two sessions of each
General Assembly, the two together not
to exceed ninety or one hundred days.
and to be held few months apart; the
first session to be devoted to the in
PRODUCTION, reference, discussion and
maturing of bills and the passage of
such as could command three-fourths of
the votes in each house, and the second
session to the final discussion and dis
position of such measures as failed to
pass at the first session, the interval be-
tween the two sessions to be given to
public discussion of such measures and
to ascertaining the sense of the people
thereon. No bill that failed to receive
a majority Of votes in both houses dur
ing the first session should be considered
during the second session, and no new
bills to be introduced at that session.
Under this plan such measures as were
plainly demanded by the public welfare
or by the distinct will of the people
would pass at the first session, the large
grist Of vicious or worthless bills would
be killed off and those of real merit and
worthy of further discussion would be,
as it were. referred to the people for
final consideration and disposal at the
second session. The plan is simple, feas-
ible and inexpensive, and. in the opinion
of the Journal. would bring about val
liable reforms in legislation.
Such a proposed change in the Con-
stitution, involving to some extent a
new departure in legislative methods.
could not be expected to command the
unanimous approval of the press or peo-
pie nor to escape opposition, but it is
at least worthy of discussion. AS be-
tween this and mere lengthening of the
legislative session on per diem basis
of compensation, the Journal regards
this plan as decidedly preferable. 1t is
obvious that the present session Of six
ty-one days is too short, and that some
thing should be done to remedy existing
evils. The States of Massachusetts,.
New Jersey. New York and Rhode
Island have annual sessions of their
legislatures without any limitation what
ever to the duration of the session. Con-
necticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wis
consin have biennial sessions without
any limitation, and most Of the other
States that have biennial sessions have
longer terms than Indiana, as Colorado.
Maryland. Mississippi and Virginia,
ninety days each; Montana, seventy
days; Tennessee. seventy-fve days. and
so on. Under the proposed plan the
two sessions held biennially need not
exceed ninety or one hundred days, and
the increased cost would not be worth
considering compared with the benefits
it is believed the change would confer.
1t is too plain for argument that if the
recent session could have continued
twenty or thirty days longer all the
meritorious bills that failed could have
been passed and the disgraceful scenes
that marked the closing hours Of the
session avoided. Under the proposed
plan, if business could be cleaned UP in
| seventy or eighty days the Legislature
would be likely to adjourn, as there
would be no per diem inducement to
| continue the session to the constitu-
fiOna1 limit