report the result of their examination and decision by bill, or otherwise, at the earliest period practicable.

No further action on this subject was taken until March 28 when Mr. Kahlo introduced a resolution embodying the recommendation contained in his measure of January 13 and which was designed to amend the constitution so as to reduce the number of representatives to 60 and the number of senators to 30. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee who made a favorable report on April 6. On April 8, the resolution failed to pass by a vote of 9-32.

[Senate Journal, Fifty-second Session, 786.]

Joint Resolution No. 16, proposing amendment to Section 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the State.

345.

Duration of Sessions of General Assembly (March 28, 1881).

On March 28, Mr. George W. Grubbs, a Republican, introduced a resolution in the Senate proposing to amend the Constitution so as to fix the length of regular sessions at 100 days and special sessions at 30 days. The Judiciary Committee, to which the resolution was referred, submitted a favorable report and the resolution was adopted by the Senate on April 8 by a vote of 348, and was reported to the House on the following day. Apparently the House took no action on the measure.

[Senate Journal, Fifty-second Session, 786.]

Joint Resolution No. 17, proposing amendment to Section 29 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the State.

346. Proposing an Unspecified Amendment (March 29, 1881).

On March 29, Mr. Nathaniel R. Lindsay, a Republican, introduced a resolution in the House proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The character of the amendment is not specified. The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Revision of Statutes.

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 1232.]

House Joint Resolution No. 11, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State.

347. Governor Gray Recommends Calling a Constitutional Convention (January 8, 1881).

In his message to the General Assembly on January 8, 1881, Governor Gray recommended the calling of a constitutional convention to consist of 50 delegates. The increase of the State in wealth and population and the fact that many of the provisions of the Constitution were obsolete, were the reasons which the Governor assigned for a revision of the Constitution.

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 37.]

It is nearly thirty years since the present Constitution of the State was adopted, during which time the State has increased in population from less than 1,000,000 to nearly 2,000,000. The increase in wealth and business has been equally great. In view of the facts that some of its provisions have become obsolete, and that experience under it has suggested many important changes and amendments, I recommend the calling of a constitutional convention, believing that to be the best mode of revising the organic act of the State. I would further recommend that the convention consist of fifty members, chosen from the senatorial districts. I believe the body would be large enough, and with the old Constitution before them as a guide, many of the provisions of which would undoubtedly be incorporated in the new, the sitting of the convention need not necessarily be protracted for any considerable length of time. But if you should not deem it advisable to call a convention, I recommend the revision of the proposed amendments, and, in addition to those, recommend an amendment making the tenure of all the State offices four years, the incumbent to be eligible only four years in every period of eight years, the election to occur between the presidential elections, so as to eliminate State from National politics. I can see no good reason why the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Clerk and Reporter of the Supreme Court should be elected for four years, and the Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of State for two years. A like provision for equalizing the terms of county officers would doubtless be favorably received.

348.

Governor Porter Opposes a Constitutional Convention (January 10, 1881).

In his inaugural address of January 10, Governor Porter announced that he was unable to concur in the recommendation of his predecessor as to the calling of a constitutional convention. His reasons for opposing a convention were that there was no necessity for a convention, the Constitution contained "an admirable provision for its own amendment," and the expense would be too great after the people had just "emerged from the financial crisis."

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 83.]

I regret that I am not able to concur with my immediate and respected predecessor, in his opinion that a convention ought to be called to revise our present Constitution.

I do not believe that there is a necessity for such a convention, and the people would not, in my judgment, so soon after they have

emerged from the financial crisis which has crippled their means of support, patiently incur the needless but great expense incident to its assemblage. The present Constitution contains an admirable provision for its own amendment, without the assembling of a convention. If two successive legislatures shall recommend a particular amendment, it shall then be submitted to the people. This avoids two extremes: the one, of not allowing the Constitution to respond by amendment, with reasonable promptness, to the deliberate will of the people; the other, of hastily placing in the Constitution improvident provisions which it would be difficult to withdraw. By the simple means provided in the Constitution itself ample facilities are furnished for amending that instrument as such amendments may, from time to time, be deemed neces

sary.

The provisions of the present Constitution are, in the main, wise and satisfactory to the people; they have generally undergone interpretation by the courts, and their construction is fixed and determined. If a new Constitution shall be framed, we shall again be launched upon a sea of doubt, and be compelled to incur the expense and inconvenience, which, in practice, will be found. to be great, of having the meaning of its principal provisions settled by judicial construction.

349. Attempts to Call a Constitutional Convention (January 11 and 14, 1881).

Two attempts were made during the 52d session to provide for the calling of a constitutional convention. One bill was introduced in the Senate and one in the House. Neither enlisted much support. The senate bill was introduced on January 11, by Mr. Jason B. Brown, a Democrat. On January 14, the bill was referred to a committee of one from each congressional district. On January 19 the committee reported that so far as the construction of the bill was concerned it was "sufficient for the purpose and object it has in view; but the committee declines to make any recommendation upon the subject of the passage of the bill, for the reason that, in the opinion of the committee, the question whether a constitutional convention should be called, and if so, the number of delegates it should be composed of, and the time when the delegates should be elected, and the time when the convention should be held, can be better and more satisfactorily determined by having the bill in its present form considered by the whole Senate, than by burdening the Senate with conflicting reports of the committee." On January 25, the bill was considered as a special order. Several amendments were considered among which was one providing that "the entire session of said convention shall not exceed ninety days," which was rejected. After the consideration of the bill had been repeatedly postponed, it was advanced to engrossment on February 11, and failed to pass by a vote of 21-28.

[Senate Journal, Fifty-second Session, 62.]

Senate bill No. 3. An act to provide for the call of a convention of the people of the State of Indiana to revise, amend or alter the constitution of said State, or to make a new Constitution for said State, and to provide for submitting said new Constitution to a vote of the qualified voters of said State of Indiana.

The House bill providing for the calling of a constitutional convention was introduced on January 14. On January 19, the bill was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges. On January 27, the committee recommended that the bill be laid on the table and the report was concurred in.

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 168.]

House bill No. 99. A bill for an act to provide for the call of a convention of the people of the State of Indiana, to revise, amend, or alter the Constitution of said State.

350. Duration of Legislative Sessions-Governor Porter's Reference (January 10, 1881).

Of the quasi-constitutional questions considered or adverted to during the 52d session, two are of especial importance. The first of these was a reference in the inaugural address of Governor Porter to the length of legislative sessions, in which he expressed the belief that there was a "popular conviction" that "the clause limiting the sessions of the legislature to sixty days" was a wholesome restriction.

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 93.]

The long retention in the Constitution, without an effort to change it, of the clause limiting the sessions of the legislature to sixty days, shows that the sense of the people is, that all needed measures of legislation can be properly considered within that time, except under extraordinary circumstances. This popular conviction ought to be treated with honest respect, and that respect ought to be exhibited by a diligent and faithful effort to get through with the business which will be before you within the period limited for a regular session. This can be done most effectually by husbanding at the early part of the session the valuable time often lost by procrastination and by not proceeding at once strenously to the task in hand. It would give me great pleasure to see this legislature honorably distinguished by the zealous promptitude with which it shall enter upon its work, and I particularly urge the members who have had previous legislative experience to use their best efforts to get the machinery necessary for the work of legislation in effective order as soon as possible.

351. Ex-Parte Opinions of the Supreme Court (January 12, 1881).

The second of these two measures was designed to provide for the submission of legal questions by the General Assembly to the Supreme Court for an opinion before placing a proposed law of doubtful constitutionality on the statute books. This proposition was embodied in a bill and was introduced in the House on January 12. On January 18, the bill passed the House by a vote of 52-46 and was referred to the Senate. On January 20, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. On February 3, the committee recommended that the bill be indefinitely postponed, and on February 14, the report was concurred in.

[House Journal, Fifty-second Session, 128.]

House bill No. 27. A bill providing for the submission of legal questions by the General Assembly, or either House thereof, to the Supreme Court for its decision, and declaring an emergency.

352. Governor's Election Notice (February 21, 1881).

The act providing for the resubmission of the pending constitutional amendments required the Governor to issue a proclamation notifying the electors of the State of the approaching election. The act was approved on February 21, and on the same day the Governor issued the following election notice.

[Secretary of State's Report, 1881, 148.]

Executive Department

of the State of Indiana.

By the first section of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, entitled "An act providing for the submission to the electors of the State of Indiana for ratification or rejection, 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 repealing all laws in conflict therewith, and declaring an emergency," approved February 21, 1881, it is enacted that certain proposed amendments of the Constitution of this State shall be submitted to the electors of the State, for their ratification or rejection, at a special election to be held for that purpose on Monday, the fourteenth day of March, 1881. These proposed amendments of the Constitution are in the words and figures following, to-wit:

Amendment No. 1.

Amend Section 2 of Article 2, so as to read as follows: Section 2. In all elections, not otherwise provided for by this con