The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1914-09-18

hardly be devised 1t would ssmos
seem as though the present consti
tuition had been purposely designd t,
perpetuate itself for all time and with
out change. Here is the amendment
| process: A proposed amendmen
must originate In the legislature anC
be passed by majority Of the vote:
or the total members of both houses
IL must then '1ie over" awaiting the
action OF the succeeding general as
sembly. II this next legislature
passes IL in the same form, and again
by majority vote of both houses, il
can then be submitted to the people
but it must be adopted by majority
vote of all voters at the election
This means a majority of the votes
cast for the highest candidate. And
while any amendment is awaiting the
action of a succeeding general as,
sembly or of the people" no other
amendment can be proposed. This
takes all direct initiative away from
the people and makes endless OBJ
structfon almost certain
The requirement of a total major
ity vote" has proven unreasonably OBJ
structive wherever tried. The Janu-
airy, 1913, issue of Equity" contains
this authoritative statement:
Twelve states have for years
had this requirement for the adop-
ton of constitutional amend
ments, and in these states 1t has
been found practically impossible
to change the constitution, no
matter how necessary"
For example, in Minnesota, in 1910
and 1912, ten amendments were voted
upon, receiving majorities thereon"
ranging from 81 per cent. to II per
cent. but all of them failed because
they did not receive a majority of all
votes at the election.
We have had a similar experience
with the proposed amendment to Fe-
quire qualifications for lawyers. This
amendment was first proposed in 1897.
and was "pending" until a final de-
cision of the supreme court in 1913 de-
clared it rejected. 1t was voted upon
three times by the people, each time
receiving large majority of those
voting on the question, but not a ma
jority Of ali electors voting at the
election. In the election of 1910 it
received 76h per cent of the vote of
those voting upon 1t, and<yet it failed.
Such is the tyranny of the minority
under our present amendment system.
Our last legislature proposed %
eReudshenss- They have been de-
nominated by the newspapers as "The
Lost Amendments" for the reason
that they did not appear in the pub
lished Acts of Legislature. However.
since they are in the Journal, it is to
be presumed that they are awaiting
the action Of the next legislature.
These amendments did not come from
the people, and they do not represent
the substantial demands of the people
II they could be adopted they might
be the means of bringing some relief
through legislative action. But what
reason is there for believing they will
meet with any other fate than that
which has attended former proposed
The only reasonable
hope of their adoption would be bv
special election. But who would sane
ton the expense of a special election
'or these proposed amendments when
they do not even touch the many i'm
portant constitutional questions which
demand a decision today? Let it be
also, that no other
can be proposed while
my of these are pending. Their effect
must be TO delay the day
If more important constitutional
changes?
The needs Of constitutional revision
n Indiana are great enough to de-
nand general revision. This can only /
De had through a constitutional con-
Tention. And in the end IL would be
ess expensive and far more salts
actory than any further experimen-
alton with amendments.