Rensselaer Union, Volume 1, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 June 1869 — Senator Morton on the Indiana Ratification. [ARTICLE]

Senator Morton on the Indiana Ratification.

It was announced the other day, by telegraph, that Ur. Senator Uorton, the great constitutional lawyer of the Senate, had made an argument, through the Indianapolis Journal, In favor of the validity, in substance and In form, of the ratification, by the Indiana Legislature, of the proposed Fifteenth Amendment. That argument is now before ua. In his usual style, clear, cogent and exhaustive, the Benator presents the case. It is quite too long for publicat ion entire. But, aa the final adoption of the amendment, in case the Indiana ratification was valid, is no longer doubtful, the matter is deserving of special consideration. Much has been written and said about it before, but now, for the first time, has a conclusive, unassailable, vindication of the Legislature been furnished. The facts in the case are too well known to need more than the briefest restatement. * The Democratic minority in the two branches of tire Legislature resigned their seats in order to block the wheels of legislation, and thus defeat ratification. They so far succeeded on their first resort to this trick that the balance supposed themselves a mere rump, “hanging on the verge of the Govern meat,” and went home, whuethe Governor proclaimed an election to fill the vacancies thus made. The re Signers having been re-elected, the Legislature was called again. After the ordinary business of the session had been nearly completed, and the Fifteenth Amendment was to be taken up again, the Democratic faction resorted to the same trick. In the Senate they were partially thwarted by a little sharp practice on the part of the majority; but In the House a vote wae not reached until the resignations had taken effect and been duly recognized. As the Senatorial ratification would amount to nothing standing alone, the dispute ia this: Was there, after the resignations, the necessary quorum t The Legislature, when the trap was first sprung upon them, thought not, but, by the time ihe trick was played again, the members had changed their minds at least they had so far changed their opinion that they resolved to test the matter. If any of them were troubled in the least with misgivings, this masterly argument must have set their minds at rest. When fully represented the Housqfonxists of 100 members, the Senate of 50. Th« eleventh section of the third article of the Constitution declares that “ two thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.” Now, the final question is, Does “two-thirds of each House” mean of the actual members at the time, or of “all the members elected to each Rouse ” Here all the controversy lies. The Senator’s argument on this point deserves to. be distinctly and fully understood. We therefore give it as it stands: Section 18, of Article IV., reads as follows t “ Every bin •halt be read by sections on three several days, In each Honse, nnless, in caw of emergency, by avow of two-third* of the Hoaw where each bill may be depending. It shall be deemed expedient to dlapesw with this rule." The eorreepoadlng provision la the old Conatltnllon of ISt# waa In these words: « Kvenr biU shall be read on three several days In each House, unless, by a vow of two-thirds of the House where the bill may. be depending, it ahall be deemed expedient to dispense with this rule." It hae never been the practice, under either Constitution, that the suspension of the rales req sired sixty seven votes la the House, or thirty lour lathe Beasts, although the phraseology la precisely the same with that employed la the ale Tenth section

or the fourth irtloto, which declares that •• twothird* of each Home shall conatltate a quorum to do boalnaM.” If the phrase “ two thirds of each House" means slxtr-aeven members in the .Hoaso of Kepresentstlres and thlrtr-fonr in the Senate to Make a quorum, It woold mean the same thing for the suspension of the rules, which her been settled the other way. Bv section fourteen of article four, two-thirds of either House may expel a member, if by “ two-lhlrds of etihor House" la meant rixty-eevan votes In.the House and thirty four In the Senate, then a Kepreseniatire could never be expelled by less than thirty-four votes, which Is not contended by anybody. If It were so, and the House of Representatives were reduced to sixty-revan members, It would reqalre the vote of every one to expel a member for corruption, Including that, of the culprit himself; and nts expulsion would destroy the Legislature. But It Is said this view cannot be maintained, because by the twenty-dfth section of the seventh artlnie of the Constitution, It la provided that “ a majority of the members eleoted to each House shall be n oners ary to pass every bill or joint resolution.” That ander this section 11 tty-one votes would he required to pass a bill, and therefore that the quorum could never consist of less than fifty-one members. It will be observed that the language or this section la en tlrely different from that of the seventh section, which provides for the quorum. The eleventh section declares that “ two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum bat this section declares that " a majority of all the members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass every bill or jolnlrerolutlon.” This, th refore, la an Independent and arbitrary provision, regulating the final 'passage of bills and joint, resoTntions, and haa nothing whatever to do with the question or the quorum. Again, in section 14 of the 6th Article, the votes of a ** majority of all the members elected to each House IH required to pass a bill over the Oovernor's veto. In the Ist section of Ar tide 16, the Legislators, by the voles of a “ majority of the members elected to each of the two Houses ’’ may snbmtt to the people propositions to amvnd the Constitution. And again. It Is Srovlded in the 7th section of Article 6. thst tate officers may be removed from office for crime. Incapacity or negligence, by Impeachment or joint resolution, two- birds of the members elected to each branch vo'lng In either esse therefor.” “ Two-thlMs of the members elected to each branch" or House Is a very different statement from “ two-thirds of each House,” and is obviously used In a different sense. “ Twothirds of each House ” refers to Its present or actual condition, while “ two-thirds oi the members elected to each branch " Or House refers, to the number originally elected, but which may have been reduced by resignation, death or expulsion. It hi a two-thirds vote In each case, but twothirds of different aggregates. In the one case U 1s two-thirds of the actual membership of the Honae, whether it consist of one hundrea Or sixty members. In the other, It is two-thirds of the members originally elected, which number may have been greatly reduced. This is complete and inexorable. Prom its logic there is no escape. Mr. Morton shows that his interpretation is that adopted by Congress aud by State Legislatures generally, viz.: that “a majority of each House ”ls a majority of the actual members. All fear that the ratification will be held invalid may, therefore, be dismissed.—Chicago Journal.