Evening Republican, Volume 21, Number 152, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 July 1917 — No Constitutional Convention. [ARTICLE]

No Constitutional Convention.

Indianapolis Star. The supreme court of Indiana decided yesterday by a division of 4 to I—-Justice Lairy reserving the right to express an opinion later—that the act passed by the last legislature calling a constitutional convention for next January is null and void because it is in conflict with Sec. 1 of the bill of rights, which says that “the people have at all times an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.” The principles laid down by the court may be briefly stated as three in number: I—The calling of a constitutional convention is not exclusively a legislative function. 2—Any mandate for the calling of a convention must issue from the people. 3—The adverse vote of the people in the constitutional election or 1914 is as binding on the legislature as a positive provision of the constitution could be. The court dismisses the contention that it lacks jurisdiction by declaring that any legislative act transgressing the powers expressly conferred on the legislature by the constitution, or involving a possible violation of constitutional forms and conditions, becomes at once a judicial question. The court further holds that Henry W. Bennett, the appellant, has an equitable cause in the fact that the state is about to expend an amount variously stated from $500,000 to $2,000,000 for the hold-

ing of the convention. It then proceeds to a discussion of specific issues. The right of the people of a state to create a new constitution is conceded on all sides. The power to initiate a convention is not contained in the general grant of legislative authority, but is resident in the people by virtue of the bill of rights. It is an almost universal custom, where the constitution does not provide for the calling of a convention, to ascertain first the will of the people and procure from them a commission to call a - Indianafollowed this custom in the submission of the constitutional question in 1914. “If ever an emphatic protest has been registered against any proposition, it was in this Instance,” says the court, referring to the adverse majority of 104,000 in the 1914 election. “It can not consistently be claimed that the legislature of 1917 had any commission from the people to call a constitutional convention. We have not been furnished with the citation of any case, now have we been able to find one, in which the legislature has disregarded the latest expression of the people in that regard,” and again, “We are of the opinion that the will of the people as expressed in the election of 1914 is as binding on the general assembly as a positive provision of the constitution could be, and hence the action of the legislature in calling a constitutional convention . . . is null and void, being in conflict with Section 1 of the bill of rights and taking from the people the right to say when they desire a change in the fundamental law.” The decision in its entirety bears our the contention, presented when the convention bill was up for passage, that the legislature was exceeding its authority and was violating one of the fundamentals of civil policy in taking unto itself a right that lies inherently in the people. In that instance the merits of the proposal for a new constitution were not so much at stake as the question of procedure. Necessarily under our forms of government a legislature is one of expressly delegated powers, and the power to initiate constitutional change, or to call a convention looking to such change, is exclusively and indefeasibly a right of the people in their composite relation

as the state. The possibility of an appeal to the supreme court of the United States is suggested, but there appears at this time no reason why such an appeal can be granted. The federal court held in the fellingham-Dye case that it lacked jurisdiction, and counsel for appellants in the present case say that it is identical in issues and scope with the other. Certainly there is in the present instance no violation of .the federal constitution’s guaranty of a republican form of government to each state, and it is not at all apparent now that there is any other violation of . the inalienable rights of citizenship or statehood, guaranteed by the federal constitution, which would warrant a review by the higher court. The decision removes the possibility of a convention at a time when, above aBF other it been unwise to revise our fundemental law. The nation is at war ana the whole resources and energies of the people are devoted to the prosecution of that war. There is not the leisure for general study and debate, both prior to the convention and during its sessions, that would insure a well-rounded, thoroughly formulated and completely representative instrument of popular government. There is not apparent now, nor has there been at any time since the act was passed, the depth and genuineness of pdpular interest in constitutional revision that offers a reasonable hope of a safe, sane and progressive document.