to mean what it says, that "a majority of all the votes cast at a gubernatorial election" was absolutely and indispensably necessary to authorize the call of a convention, and who, therefore, supposed that all votes given for either of the candidates for Governor, but not cast either for or against a convention, would be counted against the call-the tide of popular sentiment against the conclusions of the majority of the committee, will be still more apparent. Such an array of popular opinion ought to convince the most skeptical that this General Assembly cannot, under the constitution, or without violating its plain and obvious provisions, call a convention to revise, alter, or amend the organic law of our State. To do so, no better warrant than the meagre vote of last August, would, in our humble opinion, be a revolutionary proceeding, calculated to establish a precedent of dangerous tendency, and which, in its ultimate consequences, could not fail to weaken the conservative influence of the constitution as a barrier to protect the weak against the strong-the rights of minorities against the aggressive spirit of superior numbers and physical force. Besides, to assume that the meagre vote of last August decided the question in favor of the call of a convention, proves too much; because, if true, it is equally clear that if only twenty had voted for, and nineteen against the call, instead of the 32,000 being votes cast in its favor, we would then be called upon to witness the singular spectacle of a convention assembled to alter, amend, or change the constitution, at the instance, and to gratify the notions of twenty individuals, out of a population of more than 850,000! Adopt the principle, and there is no stopping place; and it is immaterial whether the aggregate vote for a convention is 20 votes or 30,000-a bare majority of one out of twenty votes would be a complete justification of legislative action preparatory to such an assemblage! The absurdity of construing the constitution in a manner involving such ridiculous results, must, we think, be obvious to all; and should carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind that the able and common sense men who framed our constitution, could not have meant, in the section and article quoted, any thing more nor less, than what the words themselves convey, that a "majority of all the votes given at a gubernatorial election," was absolutely necessary to justify the passage of an act by the General Assembly providing for the call of a convention.

Independent of these considerations, the minority of your committee consider it good policy, in cases where legitimate doubts

exist as to what is the wish of the people, that their servants should not take the responsibility of acting precipitately upon assumed or questionable views, when, by referring such doubts back to the people themselves, they can, without unnecessary or injurious delay, dispel them by another and more direct expression of the popular vote. This mode of dissolving doubts is peculiarly applicable to such a question as that of calling a convention, involving as it does, consequences of such grave import to the liberties, as well as to the pockets of the people. The people are the true sources of all political power, and, in cases of doubt, it is always safe and proper, in a republican government, to consult them. The ablest jurists in the land repudiate the idea that the meagre vote of last August was such a one as the constitution renders necessary as the prelude to legislative action in calling a convention; whilst others again, equally learned in the law, doubt if such a convention can be called oftener than once in twelve years.

There is another view of the case which should (the minority think) have some influence in abating the ho' haste of those who assume that the people have spoken affirmatively on this subject. It is this: The very apathy evinced by the small popular vote is a strong argument to prove that the defects in our present constitution are not, in their estimation, sufficiently glaring to arouse the people to go to the polls, and by their votes, prepare the way for their correction and amendment. That it has defects, and that the State has outgrown some of its provisions, few will deny: but it is not left to the "enlightened few", but to the "majority of the qualified voters', to decide whether it is not better to bear the ills we feel, than by attempting to cure them to fly to others (far worse perhaps) which "we know not of." As Jefferson justly says, "prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for slight and transient causes''; but, as soon as the citizens of Indiana feel that the evils of their constitution are no longer sufferable', can any one doubt that an overwhelming majority will rally at the polls in favor of a convention "to provide new guards for their future security''? To doubt this, would be to question their patriotism, and to infer that they were more wedded to the "forms to which they are accustomed'' than to the substantial blessings of good government. It is better to act with too much caution than with too much haste in reference to this all important question, and, at all events, not to be over-anxious to force imaginary blessings on an unprepared and unwilling people.

There are among the minority gentlemen entertaining different views as to the necessity and expediency of a convention; and a majority of them, could they bring themselves to the belief that the vote of last August warranted a call, would feel themselves constrained to unite with the majority in recommending the preparatory bill; but, believing it to be purely a question of constitutional fact, they cannot permit mere questions of expediency to cloud their judgments, or to intervene between their duty and their wishes. The question is not whether, in our opinion, a convention is needed and might be rendered beneficial and useful, or not, but whether, at the late gubernatorial election, a constitutional majority was cast in its favor? Unless this is kept steadily in view, instead of deciding in accordance with the letter and spirit of that instrument which we have solemnly sworn to obey and defend, our judgments may be biased by extraneous influences— by our feelings and our passions.

Although the minority differ among themselves as to the constitutional power of the General Assembly to call a convention oftener than once in twelve years, they are unanimously of the opinion that nothing short of "a majority of all the votes given at a gubernatorial election" would authorize or justify the passage of a law providing for the call of a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution; and are, therefore, compelled to view the passage of a law providing for such call, as an "usurpation of power, not warranted by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both."

bill.

They therefore recommend the indefinite postponement of the

104. Second Minority Report on House Bill Providing for Summoning Constitutional Convention (January 1, 1847).

The second minority report on the House bill providing for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention was signed by one Democratic member. This report defended the theory that the General Assembly is competent to call a convention at other times than the 12-year periods, but asserted that a convention had not been called for by a majority of all the electors of the State.

[House Journal, Thirty-first Session, 283.]

The undersigned, one of the committee to which was referred a resolution of the House in relation to, and a bill providing for, the holding of a convention to amend the constitution of the State, not concurring in the recommendations of the majority of the commit

12-5055

178

tee, and dissenting from the views of the minority, respectfully asks leave to present to the House, in brief, the reasons which have induced him to withhold his sanction from the bill recommended by the majority.

The undersigned in reading the 8th article of the Constitution of the State, and examining the reasons which induced the framers of that instrument to make the provision in said article for the amendment of the Constitution, can come to no other conclusion, than that the intention of those who drafted the Constitution, was to make it obligatory upon the authorities of the State "on every twelfth year" after the adoption of that instrument, to give the citizens of the State an opportunity of expressing at the ballot box, their satisfaction with, or disapprobation of the fundamental law of the State. shall be a poll opened', and the construction must, in the opinion The language is imperative; "there of the undersigned be forced indeed, which can torture this command to the authorities of the State, to open a poll at certain stated times, into a prohibition of the exercise of such a right at any other time.

But the undersigned is prepared to go still farther, and to allow that the Constitution, which makes this imperative injunction prohibitory in its character, or even to suppose such prohibition absolute; and yet falling back upon the great and inalienable rights of the people to say that they, in their sovereign capacity would still have the right at any time "to alter or reform their government in such manner as they think proper" in our federation capacity, only requiring our form of government to be republican. To deny such right is to make the creature, not the handywork of, but greater than, the creator.

So long as the government is administered under the Constitution, and its powers and functions are exercised under and by virtue of the authority thereof, so long is it binding; but to say that the power which created and breathed the breath of life into the body politic, and upon whose will and power it alone exists, has not the right to reclaim and take away the grant and confer them elsewhere, and in another form, is going farther I apprehend, than a sober judgment will warrant.

The undersigned in not giving his sanction to the bill reported by the majority of the committee, is not prevented by any constitutional scruples; but in the opinion of the undersigned, in a matter involving such momentous consequences as a change in the organic law of the State; the people whose interests are to be

affected by it, should a majority of them, in some direct and palpable form give it their sanction, it is not, in the opinion of the undersigned, necessary that they should protest against any alteration. It is enough that they have not asked for a change.

If it is proposed to call the convention under any authority in the present Constitution of the State, we have not such an expressed wish as will comply with the requirement, that "a majority of all the votes given at such election in favor of the convention," and if we propose to call it by virtue of the inherent authority in the people, we are not, in the opinion of the undersigned, clothed with the requisite power to act the clearly expressed wishes of the majority.

While then the undersigned recognizes in the existing constitution, defects, which in his opinion could and ought to be remedied he cannot consistently with a sense of duty, concur with the majority of the committee in their recommendation of the passage of the bill, but must respectfully dissent from their recommendation.

After prolonged consideration the bill was indefinitely postponed on June 6 by a vote of 61-35. (48 Whigs and 13 Democrats in favor of postponement, and 31 Democrats and 4 Whigs opposed.) Only the title of the original bill is preserved.

[House Journal, Thirty-first Session, 43.]

AN ACT providing for holding a Convention to revise and amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

105.

House Committee's Report on Governor's Message (January 4, 1847).

On January 4, 1847, the select committee submitted the following report on the Governor's message which was concurred in by the House.

[House Journal, Thirty-first Session, 317.]

The select committee to which was referred so much of the Governor's message as relates to the subject of calling a convention to alter, revise, or amend the Constitution of this State, have had the same under consideration and have instructed me to report that, as a bill providing for a convention to alter, revise, or amend said Constitution has already been introduced into this House and by the same referred to said committee, and as the said committee have acted thereon and their action has been reported to this House, that therefore said committee deem further action