Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 July 1880 — Solid Extracts From Opinion of Supreme Court. [ARTICLE]

Solid Extracts From Opinion of Supreme Court.

Section 1, article 16 of the Constitution, by the authority oi which the amendment in question was proposed by the General Assembly for ratification by the electors of the State, is in the following words: “Any amendment or amendments to tfcis Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two Houses, such propos ed amendment or amendments shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next goneral election; and if, ia the General Assembly so next chosen, such amendment or amendwnts shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to jpch House, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submil such amendment or amendments to the electors es the State; and if a majority of said electors shall ratify the same such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution.’* J

By the first section of the act of March 10, 1879, it is declared that each of eaid proposed amendments shall be submitted to the electors of the State at the election to be bolden on the first Jfcsnday in April, 1880, for their adoption or rejection. Section third provides th§t: *Aoy qualified elector at the time he votes for officers, or at such electlen, if he does not vote for any officer, may vote for or against any amendment, by depositing one of said ballots in the ballot box.” The same seetion also provides that: If a majority of the electors shall then ratify any of the saftl amendments, the same shall be apart of the Constitution, but no elector shall veto more than once, and if he votes for any officer, shall, at the same time, vote on such amendments. (Acts 1879, p 36.)

We can find no authority, either in the Constitution of 1816, or in the Constitution of 1851, or in the legislative acts upon the subject, by whieh a Constitution, or any of its separate articles, or any amendment thereto, could be adopted or ratified by a plurality of the votes of the electors, or by one less number than a majority of the whole number cast at that election. If there were anv doubts of the construction, upon its face, of the section under whioh the amendment before us was proposed, they would disappear upon the examination of the debates in the Convention which formed the Constitution. The proposition was first introduced substantially in the words in which it ultimately passed. After receiving some discussion and several amendments, it was referred to the Committee M on Future Amendments to the Constitution.” This Committee reported a section as follows: “That whenever two-thirds of all the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly shall think it necessary to call a Convention to alter or amend this Constitution they shall recommend to the electors at the next election of members of the General Assembly to vote for or against a Convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of all the electors of the State voting for Representatives have voted for a Convention, the General Assembly sh; 11 at their next session call a Convention for the purpose of revising, altering, or amending this Constitution.” A second section was of sered authorizing two-thirds of the members of the two Houses of the General Assembly tojpropose amendments to the Constitution, and when thus proposed to submit them “to th«* people at the next general ©lection tor their adoption or rejection in such manner as mav be prescribed by law; and if a majority of all the electors voting at said election for members of the House of Representatives shall vote for such amendment or amendments, the same shall become part of the Constitution.” Mr. Owen, of Posey, prepared a substitute in almost the exact words in which it now stands in the Constitution. This substitute was fully discussed by leading membeis of the Convention, and accepted by a large majority. It was then put upon itr passage, carried, and referred to the Committee on Revision. This Committee changed the phraseology of the section slightly by substituting the words “General Assembly” for the words “Senate and House of Representatives,” and the word “electors” iu one instance instead of the words “qualified voters;” and it was then adopted as it now stands, as a part of the Constitution of 1851. (2 Const. Debates, 1,288, 1,860, 1,913, 1,918,' 1,938, 1,910.) This examination of the Constitutional debates shows the affirmative sense of the Convention to have been that amendments to the Constitution could be adopted only by the majority of electors of the State. The proceedings also show us that a contrary proposition was ultimately rejected. The section, as first introduced by Read, of Clark, required “a majority of the qualified voters” to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. Ste venson moved to amend the section Dy inserting the words, ‘a majority of all the votes cast for and against the same. ” This amendment was accepted, and in that form the section was referred to the Committee, and r•ported to the Convention, as we have seen, without the Stevenson amendment. Mr. Owen’s amendment, still without the Stevenson amendment, as we have also seen, was substituted for the section reported by the Committee, and became a pare of the Constitution. (2 Const. Debates, 1,-258-1260.)

We may thus ascertain the expressed intention of the framers of the Constitution affirmatively, that it should require a majority of all the electois, of the State to adopt an amendment to the Constitution; and also their expressed intention, negatively, that “a majority of all the votes cast for or agaiust the same,' unless such majority was a majority of all the electors, should not be sufr ficient to ratify an amendment. The act of the Legislature by which the amendment under consideration was submitted to the electors of the State for their ratification or rejection, in this respect followed the Constitution, and affirms the same principle. The title of the act is: “An act providing for the submission to the electors of the State of Indiana for ratification the Constitutional amendments proposed.” etc., and it declared that “if a majority of the electors should thus ratify any of said amendments, the same shall be a part of the Constitution.” A distinetion will be observed in the Constitution as wellasin the aets of the Legislature between voting to adopt the Constitution or to ratify an amendment to the Constitution and voting to elect officers. The Constitution requires a majority of all the votes to ratify an amendment, but to elect an officer it requires only the

highest number of rotes, or a plurality. Sections 4 and 5 of article sos the Constitution, providing for the election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, declare that in voting for Governor, the electors shall designate for whom they vote as Governor, and for whom as Lieutenant Governor, * * * and the person respectively havings the highest number of votes shall be elected. This differenoe in language between the highest number of votes, and a majority of all the votes} is not the mere accident of composition; the words are used advisedly. So the Legislature, doubtless, can provide by law for the election of officers, or the ratification of a Constitutional amendment, by a plurality of votes where there is no Constitutional prohibition. Section 3 of article 7 of the Constitution, providing for the election of Supreme Judges, declares that “one of said Judges shall be elected from each District, and reside therein; but said Judge shall be elected by the electors of the State at large.” In this provision in reference to thelelection of an officer, the word, “majority” of eiectois is not used as it is in the section in reference to the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution. We must suppose that the framers of the Constitution meant just what, in plain words, they said; and that the people who ratified their labors understood tnem in the same sense.

A. gentleman of Lycoming county, Pennsylvania, who has been ill with a dropsieal affectiou for two years says he has experienced wonderful relief from the use of a tea made from the plant known as the “tag alder.” Its affects are almost instantaneous and appear permanent. The mullein is now beginning to blossom, and those who are afflicted with the piles ought to begin togath* er the flowers, or some lazy boys and girls might well do it and sell the same. A handfull boiled in a quart of new milk, strained and then drank whenever thirsty is regarded by many persons as the best recipe ever got up. So says a valued exchange. Mr. E. C. Sumner, an extensive farmer and cattle king, living eight miles south of this place, last week sold 1073 head of cattle to an Albany, New Yerk, man for export. The sum received for the lot was about $65,000 a very snug little fortune. It required 70 cars to carry them, making two renpectable trains. This is the largest sale from a single farm that ever took place in this section of the country.— Kentland Gazette. New bonnets and hats just received at Mrs. Healey’s. Dr. J. H. Loughridge has associated with him in the practice of medicine. Dr. F. P. Bitters.