tionists deprecated the instability which would be produced by holding conventions frequently. The 12-year period "gives reasonable scope to benefit by experience; foils the intrigues of factious demagogues and allays the capricious fervor of the disappointed office hunters, whose only hopes are matured by thundering clamor and continual change, "Frequent change of statutes is almost intolerable on the community," but frequent changes in the Constitution is "the direct road to anarchy." If the present call were successful, there would be annual applications for the call of a convention by "the discontented.''43 Aside from the slavery issue, it is doubtful whether the average voter considered a convention "pregnant with any very great danger to the welfare or liberties of the people. ''44 The question of calling a constitutional convention was probably more widely discussed in 1823 than at any time prior to 1849, and the defeat of the proposition was assured from the start. As early as March the Louisville Public Advertiser observed that a few of the Hoosier journals were "violently opposed" to a convention, but most of them were silent. The result of the vote they regarded as doubtful.45 A month later, the papers were beginning to call attention to the pendency of this question and to emphasize its importance,46 but many did not feel sufficient interest, as yet, to enlist very deeeply in the contest," and "from all appearances, the people of this part of the State, will vote against a convention.' '47 By the middle of June, the question was being more widely discussed and people were becoming familiar with "what are termed" the "defects" of the Constitution and were "ready to decide, by a large majority, that a call of a convention is inexpedient.''48 Opinion in Corydon seemed to be evenly divided.49 Among the post-election reflections, the Indiana Republican expressed its pleasure "to find, that on this question, the people have not been unmindful of their dearest rights and best. interests, ''50 and the Western Censor thought the defeat of the 1823. 43. Indiana Gazette, April 9, 1823. 44. Article by "Hale" in Western Censor, cited in Indiana Gazette, April 16, 45. Indiana Gazette, March 19, 1823. 46. Indianapolis Gazette, cited in Indiana Gazette of April 9, 1823. The Indiana Farmer remarked that the subject of a convention "is pretty warmly discussed in the neighboring prints." Cited in Indiana Gazette, April 23, 1823. 47. Indiana Farmer, cited in Indiana Gazette, April 23, 1823. 48. 1823. 49. 50. Article in Indiana Farmer, signed "P", cited in Indiana Gazette, June 11, Observation of "A friend to Good Offices", Indiana Gazette, July 9, 1823. convention was "by no means decisive evidence that a majority of the people are satisfied with the constitution as it now stands. ''51 The general elections of 1823 were held on August 4th, Returns were received from 31 counties. The total vote cast in favor of a constitutional convention was 2,601 and the total number of votes cast in opposition was 11,991.52 The Constitutional Referendum of 1828. After the unsuccessful campaign of 1823 no further attempt was made to submit the question of calling a constitutional convention to a referendum vote until the 10th Session of 1825-6.53 During the year 1825, the question of calling a constitutonal convention had been submitted to the electors of Pennsylvania and decisively defeated. Commenting on this unfavorable vote, the Indiana Palladium, speaking editorially, on November 11, 1825, admitted that the Constitution was defective and objectionable in many particulars, but conventions, they said, were always actuated by prejudices and predilections and although such an assembly might make some judicious amendments, "where is the security against extremes?" However, they did not wish to be understood to be opposed to a revision of our Constitution whenever it becomes necessary." With the advent of Jacksonian Democracy, the first evidences of party alignment made their appearance and the unsavory scramble for offices began. Adherents of the Whig party, probably for selfish reasons, and public spirited men generally deprecated the introduction of the practice of rotation in office, advocated the retention of efficient and experienced men during good behavior, and regretted that the Constitution placed a limit on the tenure of office holding.54 The changes in the Constitution which were still generally demanded included the removal of delinquent county officers by the circuit courts, biennial sessions of the General Assembly and viva voce voting. The "serious concern and expense" of legislative impeachments and the frequent interruption of legislative business by the "organization of courts of impeachment" and the belief that the "jurisdiction of the offences of county officers' might "with constitu 51. Cited in Indiana Gazette, September 10, 1823. 52. House Journal, 8th Session, 52. The election returns were submitted to the House by the Secretary of State on December 8, 1823. See Appendix II. 53. On January 13, 1824, during the 8th Session, a resolution was introduced in the Senate providing for the appointment of a committee to meet in May, 1824, to consider and report what laws had been passed since the commencement of the state government, infringing the provisions of the Constitution. The resolution was indefinitely postponed. Senate Journal, 148. 54. Western Sun, December 2, 1826. tional authority, and political, and moral, and pecuniary advantages" be transferred to the circuit courts; led to the adoption of a resolution by the Senate on January 4, 1826, just at the close of a lengthy impeachment trial, instructing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into the power and expediency of "declaring by law, all county offices to be vacated by a conviction of the incumbent thereof, on a presentment or indictment, before the traverse jury in any circuit court, of a criminal offence that is punishable by confinement in the pententiary." Although the resolution was adopted, no further action was taken.55 The purposes of this resolution, of course, was to change one of the most tedious, costly and unsatisfactory provisions of the Constitution by a statutory enactment and without procuring a constitutional amendment, a project which was clearly impossible. A similar attempt to secure a constitutional change by simple statutory enactment was made at the following session. In that case the House adopted a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into the expediency of so amending the laws that it shall be the duty of those doing county business to cause re-elections of Justices of the Peace, before the time of those in office expired On December 12, 1827, the committee reported "that the evils complained of, grew out of a defect in the phraseology of the Constitution, and cannot be remedied by any legislative act On January 16, 1826, the proposal to revise the Constitution "in part" by submitting certain obnoxious parts to the people' and to constitute the members of the General Assembly members of a convention "by special delegation" was introduced and rejected.57 At the 11th session of 1826-7 an attempt was made in each house to provide or the call of a constitutional convention. On December 14, 1826, the House adopted a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to coöperate with the Judiciary Committee of the senate to inquire into the expediency of preparing a bill authorizing the electors to vote on the question of calling a constitutional convention at the August election of 1827; an attempt was made to amend the resolution to provide for taking the vote at the August election of 1828. On December 16th, the committee reported unfavorably and the consideration of the measure was discon 1156 tinued.58 The Senate bill was introduced on January 12, 1827, and was rejected at once by a vote of 6-15.59 At the beginning of the 11th session the belief prevailed that the question of calling a constitutional convention would be submitted to the people. On December 15th, the day after he had introduced his resolution. asking for the preparation of a bill submitting the question of calling a constitutional convention, Mr. Beckes of Knox county informed his constituents that, "The subject of a call of a convention it is thought will be submitted to the people." He then proceeded to discuss certain articles of impeachment which had been preferred against one of the justices of the peace of Floyd county, the trial of which would cost the State some thousands of dollars. "How unfortunate it is," he said, "that a more short and cheap method of removing those inferior officers is not admissible by our Constitution.''60 In a second letter, written after the legislature adjourned, in defending his conduct as a legislator, Mr. Beckes again returned to the question of calling a constitutional convention. If this had been done, and the Constitution so changed. that the General Assembly would meet biennially or triennially, and inferior officers be removed by the courts of the country, the taxes would be reduced one-half in less than five years. The senator from that district, he said, had introduced a bill to remove inferior officers by courts, thinking that procedure would be permissible under the Constitution. 61 Mr. G. W. Johnston, in criticising Beckes' legislative record said: "Beckes wishes 'an expression of public opinion.' Upon what points? Some plausibility, without much reality!" Meantime a legislative review sent to the Lawrenceburg Palladium on January 5th, says a universal regret prevailed among the members of the General Assembly that no other than the present expensive mode of impeachment was constitutionally possible. 62 At the 12th session of 1827-28, the strict and liberal constructionists, in conformity with the clearly expressed mandate of the Constitution, were able to unite consistently in submitting to the 58. House Journal, 11th Session, 107. 59. Senate Journal, 11th Session, 155. This bill also provided that the electors should vote at the same time for or against an amendment to the Constitution of the United States so as to give the election of President, Vice-President and Senators directly to the people. With this exception the bill is identical with the measure of 1823. 60. Letter from Benj. V. Beckes to his constituents reviewing the legislation of the 11th session, Western Sun, December 30, 1826. people the question of calling a constitutional convention. Measures were introduced and considered in both houses. On December 13, 1827, the House adopted a resolution instructing the Committee on Elections to prepare and report a bill enabling the electors to vote for or against the question of calling a constitutional convention at the the general election of 1828.63 Before the House bill could be reported, a similar measure was introduced in the Senate on December 18. The bill passed the Senate on January 4 and the House on January 8.64 The act of 1828 is substantially identical with the act of 1823 except that the act of 1828 expressly declared that the poll was opened on this question "in pursuance of the eighth article of the Constitution" and election judges and inspectors were required to put the question, "are you in favor of calling a convention or not?'' to every voter who appeared at the polls.65 The question of calling a constitutional convention was now transferred to the electorate. There was no doubt as to the constitutionality of the measure, but the voters were so engrossed in national issues and the jealous magic of Jacksonian Democracy that the convention proposition aroused very little popular interest. In his review of the legislation enacted at the 12th session, Samuel Judah, the representative from Knox county, merely mentions without comment the fact that an act had been passed providing for a vote on the question of calling a constitutional convention.66 The Western Sun of May 10, printed the act in full and referred to it as "highly important and meriting serious consideration." On May 31 and June 21, the Sun again reminded the voters of the submission of the question of calling a constitutional convention and dwelt on the importance of the question. Mr. Newton C. Jones, a candidate for the legislature from Bartholomew county, in a statement to his constituents, issued from Columbus, on May 22, expressed himself favorable to the call of a convention "since the Constitution provides that slavery never can be introduced." The amendments which should be made included the substitution of voting viva. voce for voting by ballot; the abolition of the associate judgeships; the transferrence of impeachment trials to the circuit courts; 63. 64. House Journal, 12th Session, 95. The bill was never reported. Senate Journal, 12th Session, 71, 78, 127, 129, 135, 160, 170, 176 and 202. House Journal, 265, 301, 307, 334, 342 and 473. 65. Laws, 12th Session, 22. 66. Open letter to the voters of Knox county, Western Sun, February 2, 1828. |