VOLUME II. PART V. AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1851. The Constitution of 1851 became effective on November 1 of that year. There are two methods by which this Constitution may be amended. The inherent power of calling a Constitutional Convention to alter, revise or amend the Constitution always resides in the people. In addition to this method, the Constitution itself provides that one or more amendmen s to the Constitution may be proposed by any General Assembly; if the proposed amendment is adopted by a majority vote of each House, it is then formally referred to the succeeding General Assembly, and if adopted by a majority vote of each House of that General Assembly it is referred to the people for ratification. If the amendment is ratified by a majority of the electors voting at the election at which the amendment is submitted, it becomes a part of the Constitution. During the sixty-five years which have elapsed since the adoption of the present Constitution, the question of calling a convention of delegates to frame a new Constitution has been submitted to the electors on only two occasions. Owing to the dissatisfaction aroused by the suffrage provisions an attempt was made in 1859 to call a convention to effect a revision of the Constitution. Only a fraction of the returns of the election are available, but from these we know that the proposition was overwhelmingly defeated. Although numerous other attempts were made to submit the question of calling a Constitutional Convention, none was successful until 1914, when the question was again submitted and was again defeated by a vote of 235,140 to 338,947. The first amendment adopted was in 1873. This amendment forbade the General Assembly from assuming any liability connected with the Wabash and Erie Canal. The opinion of the electorate was practically unanimous on this question; both political parties had repeatedly declared in favor of such an amendment, and it was adopted with but few dissenting votes. The second amendment or group of amendments were adopted in 1881. These amendmen's affected changes in the suffrage qualifications of voters, extended the right of suffrage to negroes, made a few changes in the court sys 3 tem, authorized the General Assembly to enact a registration law and prescribed a few other changes. These amendments were submitted to the voters for the first time in 1880. Each amendment received more votes than were cas: against it, but none of the amendments received in its favor a majority of the votes cast at the election at which they were submitted. The question then arose whether the amendments had been constitutionally and legally adopted, and the question was determined by the Supreme Court in State v. Swift, the first and one of the most celebrated constitutional cases in he history of the State. In this case it was definitely determined that a proposed amendmen+ to the Constitu.ion must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast at the election to insure its adoption, but that if submitted at a special election, the votes cast at such election might be considered as the total number of votes in the State. Accordingly, these same amendments were resubmitted to the electors at a special election in 1881, and adopted. Of the proposed amendments which have actually been submited to the people since 1881, the lawyers amendment, prescribing the qualifications for the practice of law, has been most frequently before the voters. At the general election of November 6, 1900, the lawyers amendment and the Supreme Court amendment, providing for an increase in the membership of the Supreme Court, were submitted to the electors for ratification or rejection. Both amendments received an affirmative majority, but neither received a majority of the vote cast at the election. The question ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court and that tribunal decided at the November term, 1900, that the amendments had neither been adopted nor rejected and that therefore they were still pending and were obstructive of future amendments. This decision held as a controlling opinion until 1913, when the Supreme Court, in the case known as In re Boswell, held that an amendment which had been voted on but which had failed to receive a majority of all the votes cast at the election, was rejected and therefore the way was clear for the submission of other amendments. During the past few years, the two most important at empts to procure constitutional amendments were the so-called Marshall Constitution which was held an invalid exercise of legislative power, in Ellingham v. Dye, in 1912, and the so-called Stotsenburg amendments which were finally disposed of in 1915. THE THIRTY-SIXTH AND THIRTY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLIES (1851 AND 1853) As the Constitutional Convention of 1850 had consisted of 95 Democrats and only 55 Whigs, the Constitution which they framed was generally regarded as the handiwork of the Democrats. The first two General Assemblies which were elected after the adoption of the present Constitution were predominantly Democratic and, with the following exceptions, no formal attempt was made to alter or amend any of the provisions of the new instrument of government. 153. Judiciary Committee Report on Amending Process of Constitution (December 11, 1851). On December 11, 1851, the Judiciary Committee of the House submitted the following report on the character of the amending process of the Constitution which was concurred in (see Document No. 155). [Documentary Journal, Thirty-Sixth Session, Part II, 333.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred Bill of the House No. 16, "A bill to amend the first, second, and third sections of an act entitled 'An act for the more effectual, just, and equal assessment and valuation of the personal property, moneys, rights, credits, effects, and corporation stocks in the State of Indiana,-approved February 13th, 1851-and amendment pending thereto,'" with instructions to inquire whether the provisions of the new Constitution require a recital in the bill of the sections proposed to be amended or stricken out, have the same under advisement, and have directed me to repert that it is the unanimous opinion of the committee that the following language, "but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth and published at full length," being the last clause of Section 21, of Article 4, of the Constitution, does not require or contemplate that the act to be revised or the section to be amended should be set forth in the law intended to accomplish either of those proposed, but that a law setting forth the act as revised, or the section as amended, would be in conformity with the spirit and purport of said clause; this, in the opinion of the committee, is not only a reasonable construction of the phraseology of said section but conforms to its spirit and the design of its adoption. It is further the unanimous opinion of the committee, that in repealing a section of an act, a recital of the section to be repealed or stricken out is not required or contemplated by any provisions of the Constitution; therefore, the committee report back the |