The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-02-02
THE SPECIAL SESSION
GOVERNOR MATTHEW'S WILL HAVE
SOMETHING TO SAY IN A FEW DAYS.
Evidently RecedinE from His First
Opinion-LittIe Doubt to the
Hold-Oyer Senators.

Governor Matthews was asked, last night.
If. after mature consideration, he had
reached any decision on the subject of call
ing special session of the Legislature.
Il have thought OF the matter" he re-
piled. but yet have nothing to say.
cannot Indicate just what / think of the
situation so far as 1t affects such an emer-
gency act have reached no conclusion yet.
II Is likely that / will have something 10
say in answer to your question about Mon
day or Tuesday, but until then l must ask
to be excused from discussing the question
publicly
There seems to be general feeling among
the members of both parties that each one
should call a meeting of its leaders and con-
slider the problems now confronting the peo-
pie. There has been no decision by either
party yet as to what position will be taken,
and there has been move made for a
call OF meeting, but individual members
of both parties have talked of a conference
and 1t is not at all unlikely that one will be
called by both parties within the next few
days. Governor Matthews was asked, last
night, IL he had heard of any proposition
on the part of the Democrats for such a
meeting. He replied that he had heard moth
ing more than many individual expressions
that a meeting should be called and the
course of the party finally determined.
The question of the right of the hold-over
Senators TO sit in the next session of the
Legislature was placed in another light yes
terday in the general discussions of the
topic. In December, 1892, the Supreme
Court handed down its decision that de-
clared the apportionment law Of 1891 in
valid. Only month before a Legislature
had been elected under that law, and the
month following the decision that Legisla-
ture met, and during its session passed the
apportionment law of 1893, which was de-
clared void last week. In that Legislature
there were twenty-five Senators who were
elected under the law of 1891, and their acts
were never questioned. They did not begin
their duties until after the law under which
they were elected had been declared void.
Their work in that, their first session, was
unchallenged. Two years from that time
or year ago, these twenty-five Senators
were the hold-over Senators of the Legis-
lature of 1885 They stood the same
ground that the. present hold-overs stand
upon. They were elected under an appor-
Torment law that was declared unconstitu-
tional before they began their duties, yet
their right to their seats as long as their
term continued was not questioned.
The man who recited these facts said
he could not see wherein the cases of those
Senators differed from the present situa-
ton. III Senator elected under an invalid
law Is merely a de facto Senator and can
hold only until the next general election at
which d successor could be elected, the
acts throughout the session Of 1895 would
be invalid and all the laws passed by that
body would be subject to overthrow. This,
he said. is proposition that could not
be considered for moment by
any court, even though IL might
be correct on plain proposition of the
word of the law, because IL would be con-
trary to the first law of the land-public
policy 1t would throw the State into a
condition of chaos that the courts and the
Legislature, could not straighten out for
manv decades, and then not without such
great injustice TO the masses of the people
as TO amount to an absolute notification
OF large number OF private contracts,
involving millions Of dollars. This man
made his reasoning very clear that there
can be no possibility OF a necessity of an
election for fifty Senator's.