Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in the State, who shall distribute to the township trustees, a sufficient number of ballots for each township, not less in number than double the number of votes cast therein for Secretary of State at the last general election in October, 1878. Upon each of said ballots he shall cause to be accurately printed all of the said proposed constitutional amendments, which shall be numbered thereon in their order, such number being immediately above the proposed amendment to which it refers. Immediately below each of said proposed amendments there shall be printed the following words: "Upon the above proposed amendment, numbered —, (giving the proper number) I vote-," (leaving a blank space sufficient to write the words "yes," or "no," as the voter desires). Each of said ballots shall have printed at the head, or top, the following words: "The proposed constitutional amendments." Each and every legally qualified voter may deposit one of said ballots in the ballot box at the polls at which he is legally entitled to vote, and such voter may vote for or against each of the proposed amendments by writing in the proper place the words "yes," or "no," as the case may be. The Governor shall issue his writ directed to the sheriff of each county, stating therein the cause and object of such election, and the day on which it is to be held; and each of the said sheriffs shall give ten days' notice thereof by causing the said writ to be published in some newspaper of general circulation in his county, or, in case there is no such newspaper, then by posting a notice thereof at the voting places in each township.

The report of the committee was concurred in, the rules were suspended by a vote of 50-46, the bill was placed upon its final passage, and failed for want of a constitutional majority, the vote being 48-46. The Senate bill was now being matured and consequently no further action was had on this bill.

[House Journal, Fifty-first Session, 308.]

House bill No. 421. An act to provide for the submission to the qualified electors of this State the proper amendments to the Constitution of the State.

320. Municipal Debt Limit (January 20, 1879).

A very interesting and significant commentary on the probable effects of the operation of the proposed constitutional amendment fixing the municipal debt limit at 2 per cent is contained in a resolution of Mr. Charles H. Reeve, introduced in the Senate on January 20. After setting forth the injurious effect of this proposed amendment, Mr. Reeve's resolution proposed to defer the submission of the amendment until the general election of 1880,

regardless of the date when the other amendments should be submitted. The resolution was laid on the table and not subsequently considered.

[Senate Journal, Fifty-first Session, 97.]

Resolved by the Senate the House of Representatives concurring therein, That inasmuch as important public works have been commenced by towns and cities in this State for supplying of water and other public necessities, the suspension of which for want of funds, or inability to issue bonds, would result in irreparable loss and injury, and the immediate approval, by the electors of the State of the constitutional amendment No. 9, limiting taxation to two per cent may work much injury; therefore, in submitting to the electors such amendments as may be agreed to by the present General Assembly, the said amendment to the constitution, No. 9, shall be voted upon by the electors at the general election in 1880, and not before, without regard to the time when any other of the proposed amendments shall be submitted. And in providing for the submission of said amendments to the electors, the General Assembly shall provide as in this resolution is declared, for the submission of said Amendment No. 9.

321.

Duration of a Legislative Session (January 10 and 23, 1879). Resolutions were introduced in the Senate on January 10, by Mr. W. H. Ragan, and in the House on January 23, by Mr. Taylor of LaGrange, identical in phraseology, requesting the Attorney-General to use his authority in declaring that a session of the General Assembly, as limited by the Constitution should be construed to continue for sixty-one working days, exclusive of Sundays. The resolution which was introduced in the Senate was laid on the table by a vote of 40-10, and the House resolution was rejected without vote.

[Senate Journal, Fifty-first Session, 15.]

WHEREAS, In the opinion of the Senate, based upon the existing fact that each of the last three sessions of the General Assembly have proven too short for the work necessarily demanding attention, which fact has in each case referred to rendered a called session necessary, thus involving a great additional expense; and

WHEREAS, The opinion prevails to a certain extent throughout the State, as well as in the minds of Senators upon his floor, that the present construction put upon section twenty-nine (29), of article four (4), of the Constitution, that makes it include Sundays in the sixty-one days fixed as the constitutional limit of a regular

session of the General Assembly is wrong, and should be so declared by the proper authorities; therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein, That a committee consisting of three Senators and a like number of Representatives be appointed, whose duty it shall be to present this subject to the Attorney-General with the view of getting his authority to extend this and all future regular sessions of the General Assembly under the present Constitution, to include sixty-one working days, for which officers, members and employes will only be entitled to draw pay.

322. Cumulative Voting (January 16, 1879).

The following resolution, proposing to establish a system of cumulative voting for State senators and representatives, was introduced in the House on January 16.

[House Journal, Fifty-first Session, 117.]

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be and they are hereby requested and directed to inquire into and report to this House whether, in their opinion, an act can be passed by the General Assembly that would be constitutional, providing for cumulative voting for Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly, and that they report at an early day.

323. Calling a Constitutional Convention (February 10, 1879).

On February 10, Mr. Jonathan W. Gordon, a Republican, introduced a bill in the House to provide for calling a constitutional convention. On February 12, the bill was read a second time and referred to the Judiciary Committee and was apparently never reported back to the House.

[House Journal, Fifty-first Session, 426.]

House bill No. 534. A bill for an act to provide for taking the sense of the qualified voters of this State upon calling a convention to revise, alter and amend the Constitution of the State.

324. The Governor's Proclamation Declaring the Vote on the Proposed Amendments (April 28, 1879).

The seven constitutional amendments which had been agreed to by the General Assemblies of 1877 and 1879 were submitted to the electors for ratification at the regular spring election for township officers held on April 5, 1880, under the provisions of the act of March 10, 1879. This act also provided that the Secretary of State should "determine the total vote in the State, or and against each amendment, and certify the same to the Governor;"

On

and the Governor was then required to "issue and publish his proclamation declaring the number of votes for and against each amendment." April 28, in conformity with this provision, the Governor issued the following proclamation. See Appendix VIII.

[Secretary of State's Report for 1880, 96.]

A Proclamation declaring the number of votes for and against each amendment to the Constitution proposed and submitted to the electors of the State, at the election held on the first Monday of April, 1880, for their adoption or rejection:

To the People of Indiana:

THE STATE OF INDIANA,
Executive Department.

In compliance with the provisions of an act approved March 10, 1879, entitled "An Act providing for the submission to the electors of the State of Indiana for ratification, the Constitutional Amendments, proposed to and adopted by the General Assemblies of said State at the sessions of 1877 and 1879, prescribing certain duties of officers of election and others, providing penalties for violations thereof, and other provisions relating to the subject matter," it is hereby announced and proclaimed, that at the election held on the first Monday of April, 1880, the votes for and against the several amendments submitted were as follows:}

For number one, 169,479 votes, against 152,363 votes;
For number two, 177,542 votes, against 139,002 votes;
For number three, 174,400 votes, against 144,812 votes;
For number four, 176,320 votes, against 136,279 votes;
For number five, 181,887 votes, against 136,177 votes;
For number six, 175,612 votes, against 141,296 votes;
For number nine, 176,981 votes, against 126,999 votes,

as shown by a certificate of the Secretary of State, this day made to me, and by certificates of the clerks of the circuit courts on file in his office.

(SEAL)

WITNESS the seal of the State and the signature of the Governor, at Indianapolis, this 28th day of April, 1880.

J. G. SHANKLIN, Secretary of State.

By the Governor:
JAMES D. WILLIAMS.

325.

The State v. Swift-Amendments of 1880 Held not Adopted (May, 1880).

Article 16 of the Constitution provides that a proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be considered adopted if it receives the affirmative votes of a majority of the electors of the State. Now the total number of votes cast at the April election of 1880 for township officers was 380,771; the total number of electors in the State according to the official enumeration taken in 1877 was 451,028, and the total vote cast for governor in 1876 was 434,006. The affirmative vote on the seven propositions submitted ranged from 169,000 to 181,000, and there were more votes cast for each amendment than against it, the majority ranging from 17,000 to 49,000. A majority of the votes cast at the April election would be 190,236; a majority of the whole number of electors of the State according to the official enumeration of 1877 would be 225,515; and a majority of the vote cast for Governor in 1876 was 217,004. Obviously, none of the amendments submitted had obtained a majority of the votes of the electors of the State and the question arose as to whether they had been adopted. Two theories were advanced to explain the language used in the Constitution. One theory contended that a majority of the electors meant a majority of those voting on the amendments. This was the position taken by the Indianapolis Journal. The other theory, and undoubtedly the sound one, held that a majority of the electors meant a majority of the actual number of voters of the State. The act of 1879 neither authorized nor required the Governor to issue his proclamation declaring the amendments in force, but it was generally understood that the Governor's proclamation announcing the official vote on the amendments was a formal announcement of the adoption of the amendments and their incorporation in the Constitution. Several of these amendments were self-executing, others required statute law to carry them into effect. The first amendment, prescribing residential qualifications for electors, was selfexecuting and the press of the State announced that at the ensuing municipal elections to be held on May 4, 1880, no person would be allowed to vote who did not fulfill all the requirements set forth in this amendment. A test case which originated in New Albany at the spring elections was determined by the Supreme Court at its May term, 1880. The opinion of the court was written by Chief Justice Biddle and Judges Niblack and Scott filed dissenting opinions. The chief points decided in this case were as follows: (1) The Wabash and Erie Canal amendment had been regularly adopted, had become res adjudicata, and was a vital and fully operating part of the Constitution. (2) A proposed amendment of the Constitution, to become a part of the Constitution, must be ratified by the votes of a majority of the electors of the State. (3) The General Assembly may provide that the whole number of votes cast at the election at which an amendment is submitted may be taken as the whole number of electors of the State at that time. (4) The amendments submitted in 1880 were neither ratified nor rejected; hence they were still pending, and under a valid statute might be submitted again. In regard to the Canal amendment, the decision held that in 1873 there was but the single question of the ratification or rejection of the amendment submitted to the electors; the Governor and Secretary of State were authorized to declare the result of the election, and the Governor was authorized to proclaim the amendment ratified. "The Governor did so proclaim, and no one ques

« AnteriorContinuar »