gates, one to be selected from each representative district. While most of the Democrats opposed the measure, they preferred this provision in the event that the bill should pass and it was the amendment which ultimately prevailed. Shull argued that the expense of the convention should not be considered and fifty members was entirely too few and not sufficiently representative. Mr. Dougherty favored a large representation for "in a multitude of counsellors there is safety," and Mr. Dobbins was of like opinion.

The third plan was proposed by Mr. Hunter and provided for thirteen delegates. Mr. Hunter thought the convention should consist of thirteen delegates; one from each congressional district and two from the State at large. He defended his amendment on the grounds of economy. This proposition met with little favor. It was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans for the reason that it was not sufficiently representative, that it would result in a one man power and that the saving of money was an unworthy consideration.

The further discussion of these propositions was postponed until January 28.75 At that time the argument turned largely on other matters. A motion to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the measure was lost by a vote of 47-30.76 On February 8, the bill was taken up for consideration again," and on motion of Mr. Davis it was referred to a select committee of five. At this juncture Mr. Hamilton of Boone obtained leave to introduce a preamble and resolution, setting forth that many provisions of the Constitution were defective, rendering legislation under it difficult, tedious and in some respects impossible and at least inadequate to the emergencies of the times and the wants of the citizens and restricting remedies which would tend to the public good; and resolving that a committee of one from each congressional district be appointed to draw up and report such amendments to the House as seemed needful and advisable.

These resolutions were agreed to and Mr. Davis withdrew his motion to commit the bill to a select committee in favor of a committee of one from each congressional district.78

On February 10, this committee reported certain amend

75. House Journal, 250.

76. House Journal, 272; Brevier Report, p. 98.

77.

Agreed on January 31 to make the bill the special order for February 3 postponed to February 8, House Journal, 287, 363; Brevier Report, p. 107, 128. 78. House Journal, 436 and Brevier Report 151. This committee consisted of 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats.

ments which were adopted and which changed the bill to precisely the form in which it passed. Dougherty said there were several members of the committee who disagreed with the report and were opposed to the passage of the bill. On February 21, the bill failed of passage for want of a constitutional majority, the vote being 47-39.80 Two days later, on February 23, the bill was again put upon its final passage and passed by a vote of 56-34,81

The discussion of the bill began on January 27 and was resumed on January 28. At the close of the debate on the second day an attempt was made to indefinitely postpone the bill and the relative strength of the advocates and the opponents of the measure was fairly disclosed. There were thirty votes in favor of indefinite postponement and forty-seven opposed. The significance of this vote was clearly comprehended by the opposition and the Sentinel in an editorial on the following day remarked that the "test vote" in the House "indicated a determination to essentially change or modify the present organic law of the State."s

The important points about which the contest was waged were the following:

(1) Was there a popular demand for a revision or amendment of the Constitution?

(2) If there were unmistakable and acknowledged symptoms of such a demand in what way should the amendment or revision be undertaken? Two radically different methods were advocated. (a) The sponsors and proponents of the bill were committed to the plan of calling a constitutional convention. This was probably the more democratic of the two and involved the additional question as to whether the legislature was willing to submit the proposition to the people for their decision. (b) The opponents of the bill favored the plan of legislative amendment and insisted that the Constitution provided for its own amendment.

(3) What were the most obvious defects of the Constitution which called for peremptory revision or amendment?

(4) Incidentally, considerable partisan feeling was displayed during the debates, and when the passage of the bill was assured, a controversy over its provisions arose.

Was there a popular demand for a revision or amendment of the Constitution? The opinions of the representatives on this sub

79. House Journal, 483 and Brevier Report, 165. 80. House Journal, 696 and Brevier Report, 226. 81. House Journal, 752 and Brevier Report, 239, 82. Sentinel January 29, 1859.

gates, one to be selected from each representative district. While most of the Democrats opposed the measure, they preferred this provision in the event that the bill should pass and it was the amendment which ultimately prevailed. Shull argued that the expense of the convention should not be considered and fifty members was entirely too few and not sufficiently representative. Mr. Dougherty favored a large representation for "in a multitude of counsellors there is safety," and Mr. Dobbins was of like opinion.

The third plan was proposed by Mr. Hunter and provided for thirteen delegates. Mr. Hunter thought the convention should consist of thirteen delegates; one from each congressional district and two from the State at large. He defended his amendment on the grounds of economy. This proposition met with little favor. It was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans for the reason that it was not sufficiently representative, that it would result in a one man power and that the saving of money was an unworthy consideration.

The further discussion of these propositions was postponed until January 28.75 At that time the argument turned largely on other matters. A motion to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the measure was lost by a vote of 47-30.76 On February 8, the bill was taken up for consideration again," and on motion of Mr. Davis it was referred to a select committee of five. At this juncture Mr. Hamilton of Boone obtained leave to introduce a preamble and resolution, setting forth that many provisions of the Constitution were defective, rendering legislation under it difficult, tedious and in some respects impossible and at least inadequate to the emergencies of the times and the wants of the citizens and restricting remedies which would tend to the public good; and resolving that a committee of one from each congressional district be appointed to draw up and report such amendments to the House as seemed needful and advisable.

These resolutions were agreed to and Mr. Davis withdrew his motion to commit the bill to a select committee in favor of a committee of one from each congressional district.78

On February 10, this committee reported certain amend

76. House Journal, 272; Brevier Report, p. 98.

77. Agreed on January 31 to make the bill the special order for February 3 postponed to February 8, House Journal, 287, 363; Brevier Report, p. 107, 128.

78. House Journal, 436 and Brevier Report 151. This committee consisted of 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats.

ments which were adopted and which changed the bill to precisely the form in which it passed. Dougherty said there were several members of the committee who disagreed with the report and were opposed to the passage of the bill.79 On February 21, the bill failed of passage for want of a constitutional majority, the vote being 47-39.80 Two days later, on February 23, the bill was again put upon its final passage and passed by a vote of 56-34.81

The discussion of the bill began on January 27 and was resumed on January 28. At the close of the debate on the second day an attempt was made to indefinitely postpone the bill and the relative strength of the advocates and the opponents of the measure was fairly disclosed. There were thirty votes in favor of indefinite postponement and forty-seven opposed. The significance of this vote was clearly comprehended by the opposition and the Sentinel in an editorial on the following day remarked that the "test vote" in the House "indicated a determination to essentially change or modify the present organic law of the State."'82

The important points about which the contest was waged were the following:

(1) Was there a popular demand for a revision or amendment of the Constitution?

(2) If there were unmistakable and acknowledged symptoms of such a demand in what way should the amendment or revision be undertaken? Two radically different methods were advocated. (a) The sponsors and proponents of the bill were committed to the plan of calling a constitutional convention. This was probably the more democratic of the two and involved the additional question as to whether the legislature was willing to submit the proposition to the people for their decision. (b) The opponents of the bill favored the plan of legislative amendment and insisted that the Constitution provided for its own amendment.

(3) What were the most obvious defects of the Constitution which called for peremptory revision or amendment?

(4) Incidentally, considerable partisan feeling was displayed during the debates, and when the passage of the bill was assured, a controversy over its provisions arose.

Was there a popular demand for a revision or amendment of the Constitution? The opinions of the representatives on this sub

gates, one to be selected from each representative district. While most of the Democrats opposed the measure, they preferred this provision in the event that the bill should pass and it was the amendment which ultimately prevailed. Shull argued that the expense of the convention should not be considered and fifty members was entirely too few and not sufficiently representative. Mr. Dougherty favored a large representation for "in a multitude of counsellors there is safety," and Mr. Dobbins was of like opinion.

The third plan was proposed by Mr. Hunter and provided for thirteen delegates. Mr. Hunter thought the convention should consist of thirteen delegates; one from each congressional district and two from the State at large. He defended his amendment on the grounds of economy. This proposition met with little favor. It was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans for the reason that it was not sufficiently representative, that it would result in a one man power and that the saving of money was an unworthy consideration.

The further discussion of these propositions was postponed until January 28.75 At that time the argument turned largely on other matters. A motion to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the measure was lost by a vote of 47-30.76 On February 8, the bill was taken up for consideration again," and on motion of Mr. Davis it was referred to a select committee of five. At this juncture Mr. Hamilton of Boone obtained leave to introduce a preamble and resolution, setting forth that many provisions of the Constitution were defective, rendering legislation under it difficult, tedious and in some respects impossible and at least inadequate to the emergencies of the times and the wants of the citizens and restricting remedies which would tend to the public good; and resolving that a committee of one from each congressional district be appointed to draw up and report such amendments to the House as seemed needful and advisable.

These resolutions were agreed to and Mr. Davis withdrew his motion to commit the bill to a select committee in favor of a committee of one from each congressional district.78

On February 10, this committee reported certain amend

75. House Journal, 250.

76.

77.

House Journal, 272; Brevier Report, p. 98.

Agreed on January 31 to make the bill the special order for February 3 postponed to February 8, House Journal, 287, 363; Brevier Report, p. 107, 128. 78. House Journal, 436 and Brevier Report 151. This committee consisted of 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats.