The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-31
BACK TO THE 49, ACT.

concluded from second Page. J

e.
neglected its duty to supply the basis for
choosing the next. L. cannot believe that
the trainers of the Constitution contem-
plated the surrender by the people of the
erai Assembly, at the expiration of a
sexennial period, in the event of a failure
TO enact a law or the enactment OF an In
valid law. III II had been intended to make
the continuance of this power dependent
upon legislative action there was no reason
for the mandatory provision OF the Consti-
ton TO apportionment: the whole sub
ject would have been left with the legis-
lative department of the government Nor
cam believe nenaed that IN tine as
the reserved right to elect an Assembly
was 10 be exercised upon some basis TO
be determined by the masses
"Such a rule would be simply a substitute
for a constitutional provision, and its en-
forcement. where party spirit becomes so
intense as IL does with us. would be fraught
with difficulties certainly never intended to
tons
1.-THE Assembly OF 1855 found no enumera-
ton upon which to make an apportionment
as then required, and, In the election OF
1856. the Assembly was chosen upon the
chosen. at its session in 1851. without enum-
Grafton. apportioned the State. and without
ment the Assemblies following that session
were elected under that apportionment un-
til Governor Morton. in January. 1866. called
this long-continued failure of duty At no
time in the history of the State has As
sembiy been chosen upon a ratio adopted
by common consent, further than that
where the Legislature has failed to adopt
an. apportionment elections have been held
without objection. thereby giving construe.
ton 10 the Constitution In accordance with
the view now suggested. namely-tiiat the
act OF 1885 Is the last apportionment which
stands unquestioned and Is that upon which
the next election must be held If that law
remains unquestioned.
f0f I<nr
the expiration OF the six-years period In
the absence of a renewed valid apportion-
ment. was. In effect. held in the Parker
case. where as L have said. this court de-
clared the act 5f 1891 unconstitutional and
passed back OF the law of 1885. notwith-
standing the rule that courts never pass
upon constitutional questions when case
may be decided without doing SO, and held
unconstitutional the act OF 1873. then stand
Ing through more than two periods OF six
whether this act shall continue unques-
toned. whether the people will follow the
custom In such cases and make their cleo
ton under the law. or whether that custom
will be abandoned and public officers will
refuse TO follow Il and thereby defeat the
constitutional object TO convene an Assem-
bly, in 1897. depends upon the wisdom and
patriotism OF the people. l cannot believe
that the Governor would assume 10 declare
the act OF fsSs unconstitutional, TO abandon
the custom or the people constituting the
Constitution In like cases. and then. having
with doubts as 10 its further authority for
the enactment OF a new law. III the act OF
1885 should. In proper proceedings, be de-
OF apportionment should be found. the
maintenance OF the legislative branch OF
fhe State government would hang upon the
doubtful proposition that the Governor
could convene In special session from the
members last chosen de facto General
Assembly. That such frightful cOnse-
auences are possible from the character OF
thee legislation now under consideration
would seem TO demand serious reflection
nd nat eel 10. he
fare Of the government as shall subordinate
mere partisan advantage"