Mr. SHOUP said, that he was opposed to the amendment because a mere resolution of inquiry could give no assurance to the Convention as to what the committee would make of ią; and the whole ground of debate would have to be Convention could now decide upon the amendment, as he believed they would ultimately adopt the principle of this resolution. He supposed it would be one of the results of the labors of this Convention to abolish local legislation by the General Assembly; and if so, the rights of the people could not be represented unless the voice of the majority were heard in the enactment of every law. Then, more especially, it would be the duty of every representative to be in his place. It was right that a full and fair expression of the will of the people should be heard; and it was democratic that the majority should govern. hoped to see a constitutional provision, that, hereafter, ever law of the land shall be enacted by a majority of the representatives of the people.

He

this a resolution of inquiry. He was as ready to meet the question now, as he should be at any period of the session. He could not think that the people of Indiana, sending here one hundred men to legislate for them, would be content with the understanding that thirty-gone over after the report came in. But the four of that number could pass a law; for if only a majority of a quorum were necessary to pass a law, thirty-four was that majority. He submitted to the Convention, whether it had ever been generally understood by the people, that a law of any importance could be enacted and made obligatory upon them, in their House of Representatives of a hundred members, by a bare majority of a quorum? Nevertheless, it was well known, that, under this practice, many laws had been passed which were not agreeable to the wishes of the people, and which had been repealed in consequence. He did not think there could be any hardship in requiring, that fffty-one members out of the hundred shall record their votes in the affirmative upon the final passage of every bill, before it can become a law. It struck him that this question might as well be decided now, as at Mr. RITCHEY said, he thought this a very any other period. He hoped that the motion important question, and he was himself preto change the imperative character of the reso-pared to vote upon it at this time. But if memlution, if it were insisted upon, would not pre-bers had not thought sufficiently upon the subvail. He thought they would'expedite business ject to make up their minds, he would be glad by deciding all these questions as they might to afford time to such by a postponement of come up. If gentlemen wished to discuss the the subject. He thought that one of the prinquestion, he was willing to give them time. cipal reasons which induced the people to call He would not seek, by any parliamentary this Convention was, that there might be set stratagem, to prevent the free discussion of up a constitutional check upon the legislation every proposition. of the State. It was a universal complaint that Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe said, he should the State had too much legislation. But that vote against the proposition to make this a was not all. It was really true that reflecresolution of inquiry, because he thought it tion and propriety did not always mark the action better to settle these questions as they went the Legislature. In reply to the gentleman along, and he should also vote against the reso- from Tippecanoe, (Mr. Clark,) who contended lution. There was one feature in the resolu- that the adoption of this principle would put it tion to which he was radically opposed. It in the power of a factious minority to defeat involved a principle which would enable a fac- the will of the majority, he was prepared to adtious minority in the Legislature to defeat the mit the fact and all the force of the objection, will of the majority; and there were emer- and still he would put the principle into the gencies which would arise in every government, Constitution. They had seen how a minority when it would be absolutely necessary that of the Legislature of the State of Ohio had desomething should be done-when it would be feated the will of the majority, and if the minority fatal to stand still. Now it seemed to him of the Legislature of the State of Indiana should at that, under the principle involved in this resolu- any time see proper to take such a responsibilition, a very small minority of the Legislature, ty upon themselves, and stop the wheels of by seceding or keeping out of the way, at any Government, he would say, let them do it; but time, might completely defeat the will of the he would take care to make that responsibility majority; whereas, in his opinion, there ought so great and so crushing, that no man would be always to remain in the legislative body suffi- willing to take it upon his shoulders. He had cient power to secure the transaction of all the been present here during sesion after session of business necessarily belonging to that depart of the Legislature, and witnessed the passage of ment of the government. He thought the the measures when the yeas and nays could not yeas and nays required on the final passage of be called upon them for want of a quorum, and busa bill, would be a sufficient remedy for the eviliness of the worst character had been passed complained of. But the objection which he had referred to was insuperable, that the princi- | ple of the resolution would enable a factious minority to defeat the will of a majority.

in this way-all this he had himself seen and felt, and he had remonstrated in vain against its manifest injustice.

He hoped the new Constitution would require

Ritchey) had intimated, and as they all could see upon the examination of the journals of the General Assembly, bills of the most im

the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members elected to both branches of the General Assembly, before any measure could have the sanction of law. He commended the sub-portant character were often passed in one ject to the mature reflection of the body. It should not be passed upon without reflection.; Whether it went to the committee as a resolution of inquiry, or of instruction, he cared not; and he cared very little whether it were decided upon now or hereafter. He had spoken merely because he desired to direct the attention of gentlemen to the importance of the subject.

day, and frequently in the course of five minutes, without having been once read through, or perhaps ten members knowing their purport, and perhaps without a vote in the affirmative of more than one-fourth of the members elected. It was by means of such a system of legislation, that the Statute Books had been incumbered with not merely useless, but even bad laws. It was, in fact, by means of such a method of legislation, that at one time they had established an insurance company which directly became a bank; and that at another time peculiar privileges were given to one railway company, which on the very next day would be denied to another. Indeed, it was, in no small degree, by means of such legislation, that the volume of local laws had been extended and enlarged to its present unwieldy dimensions.

Mr. NILES said, he earnestly hoped that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Switzerland (Mr. Kelso) would not be adopt-} ed, for the reason, (as it occurred to him,) that its tendency would be to suppress the freedom of debate and discussion. It seemed plain to his mind that it would be giving the widest latitude to debate, to take up for consideration all important questions and discuss them as presented. He would not, of course, insist upon a decision at once; definite action might be postponed from day to day. He thought it The gentleman from Tippecanoe (Mr. Clark) was discourteous toward the mover of the re- { had alluded to the inconvenience and occasionsolution, thus to attempt to silence him entire-al evils which would incidentally grow out of ly, by changing the whole character of his such stringent rules. But that gentleman proposition, and referring it as a mere matter should recollect that such evils were only of a of inquiry-taking away all its vitality, in negative character, which the people themfact; for the committee knowing the subject to selves could remedy. When factious legislahave been in agitation, would consider of it in tors, who, by combinations of minorities, had their room, whether submitted to them in the defeated wholesome legislation, should go home form of a resolution of inquiry or not. He to account to their constituents, they would considered such a motion no less discour- not be sent back to act the same part again. teous than a motion to lay finally upon the But when, by hasty and indiscriminate legislatable or postpone indefinitely. With ref- tion, peculiar and unreasonable privileges were erence to this proposition, he hoped it would granted to private corporations or individuals, not be disposed of in this summary man- or, what was still worse, when injudicious pubner, for he deemed it a matter of the high-lic legislation was adopted, then it would be est moment. He spoke confidently with ref- a direct, positive and serious injury, and the erence to his portion of the State when he remedy not so easily applied. affirmed, that there was no one subject upon which the opinion of the people was more decided and unanimous, than that all practicable constitutional checks ought to be placed upon inconsiderate and hasty legislation. At the proper time-even then, if it were in orderhe would submit an amendment to the effect, that for the passage of a law, not only should the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly to be necessary, and that the yeas and nays in every case should be required to be entered upon the journals, thus holding every man responsible for his acts, but that no law or joint resolution should, in any case, be passed until it had been three times fully read on three several days in each house. He was confident that such was the sentiment and wish of the people in his part of the State; and he deemed it as important and as necessary, indeed, as any other provision of the Constitution.

As the gentleman from Johnson (Mr.

He should not go into any discussion of the main subject this morning: he would, therefore, merely repeat the earnest wish, on his part, that debate would not be suppressed in this way; and that the character of the resolution would not be changed, but left in the form submitted by the mover. He felt confident that this was the true method of eliciting the sentiments of the Convention, and learning from each other the wishes of their constituents.

Mr. EDMONSTON said, that he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Switzerland, (Mr. Kelso.) He thought the present was the proper time to discuss this matter. He confessed that he could not see how the adoption of this principle could remedy the bad legislation spoken of by the gentleman from Laporte, (Mr. Niles.) It certainly could not operate as any check upon the power of the Legislature to confer exclusive privileges upon corporations or individuals. It could not prevent the same combination of interests which had heretofore procured this kind of leg

ses; then it remains for the body to determine whether they will coincide with the report or not. This was what he understood about the utility of committees. He would like to inquire of gentlemen whether it would not be preferable to offer, at once, an amendment to the Constitution in proper shape? They had talked about saving time; would it not be a far more time-saving method to have their amendments at once incorporated in the Constitution? He affirmed that the course proposed by the gentleman would prove to be a saving of time over the left shoulder-a useless and reckless waste of time.

islation; nor could anything prevent such legislation, while the Constitution continued to sanction the practice of local and special legislation. But let this practice be prohibited-let the Legislature pass only general corporation laws granting equal rights and privileges to all companies which might organize under them. This would ensure an equality of rights under the legislation of the State, which could never be brought about by requiring a majority to record their votes in favor of the passage of every law. But there was an evil which, in his estimation, would result from making this a Constitutional provision. How often was it the case, that, in consequence of sickness, and for According to strict parliamentary usage, he other causes, a full House could not be obtain-supposed that he ought not to detain the Coned: and in this way, measures of vital impor-vention any longer; but as other gentlemen tance would be frequently defeated by a Constitutional provision of this kind. He thought the recollection of the Chair would bear him witness that, if, in the consummation of the State Debt Bill, there had existed such a constitutional provision, it would have been lost. It seemed to him that by the adoption of this resolution the Convention would be taking into their own hands what properly belonged to the people. He considered it would be a sufficient remedy to adopt a Constitutional provision, that, upon the final passage of every bill, each member of the Legislature should record his vote. By this means he would be held directly responsible to the people, and not to this Convention: and surely if a measure were defeated by a member absenting himself he should be amenable only to his constituents. It seemed to him, that, upon the whole, the adoption of this principle would be injurious instead of beneficial.

had gone into the merits of the resolution, he would like to do the same. They had talked about the will of the people, and affirmed that an expression of that will could not be obtained, unless a majority of all the members of the Legislature should be required to vote in the affirmative before any proposition could become a law. Their object seemed to be, if he understood the matter, to compel every member of the Legislature to remain here until the end of the session. But he affirmed that this provision would no more have that effect than if not one word of it were in the Constitution. For when any member took a notion to go home he would ask for leave of absence, which would be granted, of course. It would be thought discourteous to refuse the first application. And, on the next day, perhaps B, C, D, &c., would have leave of absence, because the application had not been refused in the first instance. And so, frequently, the House would be found without a quorum. During the term of his own short ex

the case, and on the last days of the session there was sure to be but a very thin attendance. Under the operation of this principle, the sickness of five or six members, and perhaps the factious temper of five or six others, might prevent the passage of the most important law. Where then was the wisdom of placing so much power in the hands of a few factious men, who might be disposed to keep outside of the bar? They need go no farther, and upon a call of the

Mr. KELSO said, it would seem, by what had been said, that his motion was rather un-perience in legislation, such had always been popular this morning. He would, therefore, with the leave of the committee, attempt to defend it. It had been said that his motion was discourteous to the mover of the resolution. He thought there would be no more discourtesy in making a motion of this kind than for one man to attempt to impose his opinions imperatively upon a standing committee of this body. What necessity was there for creating standing committees at all? If they were to make their instructions to them upon all subjects impera-House they could answer, and the Clerk would tive, the committees would have no discretion whatever; there would be no necessity for them; the whole idea of standing committees would be a foolish anomaly, if they were to be instructed in every thing they should do. He understood the advantage of committees in deliberate bodies to be something like this: the Chair selects for each committee, men well qualified to pass upon any measure that might be submitted to them; then the body submits to them their propositions, and the committee, after considering them in all their bearings, report them back to the House, with their judgment in the premi

report a quorum present. If gentlemen would take the trouble to examine the journals for four or five years past, they would find that, upon the announcement of the Chair that there was no quorum voting, a call of the House, at the very minute, had furnished a quorum, time after time. By the adoption of the principle of this resolution, they would only give to such a factious minority ten times more power than they now have. What obligation could it place members under to remain in their places? None in the world. It could not have the ef{fect which gentlemen pretend. For these and

other reasons, he should adhere to his motion} to change the character of the resolution. Like his colleague, (Mr. Pepper of Ohio,) he was, himself, ready to vote upon this question, but he would rather, first, have the judgment of the standing committee, in the shape of a report.

It

this maxim did not apply here. He thought the evil of too little legislation to be far less than the evil of too much legislation; and if they were to adopt this provision, that the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of both branches of the General Assembly Mr. OWEN said, that he agreed with the should be required to pass a law, did any one gentleman from Switzerland, (Mr. Kelso,) and, suppose that if, in consequence of its adopwith respect to the reference which had been tion, any important proposition should be demade to that gentleman's amendment, (with all feated, the matter would not be referred back due deference to the judgment of the gentleman to the people? The people then would take from Laporte (Mr. Niles,) for whom he had much up and pass upon it themselves, by sending respect,he could not regard it as anything discour-back the proper men to express their wishes. teous if a gentleman proposed to change a resolu- It would be the same thing as submitting the tion from one of positive instruction to one of in- proposition to the vote of the people. qury. Wherever, he would not say a majority of would operate only as a postponement of legthis body, but, wherever even a small minority islative action. It was like the veto power. should appear to have doubts upon the propriety He had always been in favor of the veto, beor expediency of any proposition submitted, he, cause he believed it was only a postponementfor one, would always vote to have the question only a keeping back of hasty legislation. It postponed to have it referred to a committee, was a maxim in criminal law-and a very propand await their action, before deciding in regarder and merciful one-that it was better one to it. Upon such a question as that of bien-hundred guilty men should escape punishment ial sessions of the Legislature, a matter which than that one innocent man should suffer. He had been universally discussed throughout the {would not go quite so far as that, in this conState, there certainly could be no harm in comnection, but he would say, that he believed it ing to a vote upon it at once, for, as it turned out was better that ten good laws should be postin that case, nineteen-twentieths of the Con-poned than that one bad law should be passed. vention were found voting for it. But so far as any Postponement was no very great evil in legisother matter, not so generally discussed and lation; but the passage of a bad law might decided among the people, was concerned, he be an evil of the gravest character, which would did think that, instead of implying discourtesy, be felt by the public for years. Upon this quesit was but a common act of courtesy, to request tion his mind was made up; but from this it the opinions of a committee upon it. He expected in accordance with notice given, to have an opportunity of exhibiting his own course in such a case, upon another proposition that in regard to the property of married women. He intended to introduce this as a proposition of inquiry, for he desired that no man should be asked to give his vote upon it without exam-posed amendment of the gentleman from Switzination.

did not follow that the minds of others were prepared for the vote; and for that reason, in order to give others an opportunity for examination, he should vote for the amendmentment of_the gentleman from Switzerland.

Mr. SMITH of Ripley said, he desired to make a few remarks with reference to the pro

erland. For the discussion of all propositions The gentleman from Laporte (Mr. Niles) had tion of the business was usually discussed in there was an appropriate time, and this porspoken of this course of proceeding as calcula- the committee of the whole. He apprehended ted to suppress debate. He submitted it to that ted to suppress debate. He submitted it to that that the most proper time for the discussion of gentleman whether it would not operate only as a postponement of discussion. He thought, as a these measures was after the report of the comgeneral rule, when anything like an expressionvention could then resolve itself into committee mittee had been made upon them. The Conof opinion of the committee was called for, up- of the whole, and decide upon them. He conon any important subject, it would be better not sidered that this was an inappropriate time for to press the decision at once, nor so long as gentlemen seemed not fully to have examined the discussion of such propositions as gentleit, nor to have had an opportunity for examinamen might think proper to offer. ion.

In regard to the resolution itself, with the permission of the Convention, he would say a few words. He was in favor of the principle of the resolution. The gentleman from Tippecanoe (Mr. Clark) had said that it was of

It

If gentlemen were allowed to offer resolutions upon every topic embraced in the Constitution, and engage in the discussion of their merits before they were referred to their appropriate committees, it would be involving the Convention in a kind of guerrilla debate. would be springing upon them the examination of questions that had not yet received their apgeneral maxim, it was doubtless true, that therepropriate consideration at appropriate times. If is as much factiousness in obstinate conserva- any gentleman was desirous of offering a resolutism as in wild innovation; but it struck him that {tion of instruction to any one of the committees

ten as fatal to stand still as to advance.

As a

he could do so and it would be duly referred, { but he could not but think that the proper time for the discussion of these propositions would be when the report of the committees were received.

He would state to the Convention that he thought the appropriate course to have been pursued by the Convention, at the outset, was to have referred the Constitution to the committee of the whole, and in that committee to take it up section by section, and express their sentiments, fully and impartially in regard to them. But they had now raised these committees, and it was proper that these questions should be referred to them, and when their reports were received the Convention could go into a committee of the whole and decide upon their adoption or rejection. He wished to call the attention of the members to the fact that there was an appropriate time for the discussion of all these propositions. They had raised the necessary committees and referred nearly all the subjects embraced in the Constitution to them, and should any gentleman be desirous of inserting an additional section to that instrument he could do so by bringing forward an imperative resolution, embodying the principle he desired to have incorporated among its provisions. He considered that the discussion would be doubled if they discussed these propositions now, and discussed them again after the reports of the committees were received and came up for consideration in committee of the whole.

ed against by constitutional rules, of a character such as that now under consideration.

He would go a little further than the gentleman from Putnam, in regard to special legislation, and also in regard to special appropriations from the Public Treasury. He thought that a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature, by yeas and nays, was requisite in regard to all special appropriations of money, or special acts of any kind whatever. He had heard members of the Legislature say, that they cared nothing how they voted on certain measures, simply because the people whom they represented would have no immediate interest in the issue. But if we adopted a rule requiring the yeas and nays upon the passage of all bills, it would bring every member square up to the mark, and all would be held responsible for their votes. He trusted that the committee having charge of this subject would report a provision imperatively requiring the yeas and nays on the final passage of all bills. To his certain knowledge, bills had passed the House of Representatives, no record of which appeared upon the journal. Would that have been the case, he would ask, if the yeas and nays had been required to be taken upon them? The famous Canal Land Bill, which made so much noise at the North a few years ago-and one of the most infamous measures, if he was correctly informed, that ever passed a legislative body, was an example in point. No record of its passage could be found upon the journal of the session at which it passed. He hoped that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Switzerland would be adopted; and he further hoped that the rule proposed would be incorporated in the new Constitution.

Mr. CHAPMAN said, that he hoped the proposition of the gentleman from Switzerland (Mr. Kelso) would be adopted. He was in favor of a full and free discussion of all important subjects before they were referred to the committees. It was desirable Mr. BORDEN stated, that in regard to the that committees should have some manifesta- correctness of the position taken by gentlemen, tions of the opinion of the members of the that it required a majority of the Legislature Convention upon the different propositions re- to pass a bill, there could not be much dispute. ferred to thein, in order that they might pre-He favored the idea of simply inquiring into pare a report in accordance with the will of the expediency of the proposed resolution. In the majority. He had had no experience in case the Convention concluded to make this legislative matters inside of the bar, but he amendment to the resolution, he was prepared thought he had a little outside of the bar; and to offer an additional amendment. He thought from witnessing the proceedings of the last to the effect that in voting money out of the nine sessions of the Legislature, he had been treasury for proper purposes, it should require satisfied that some rule of this description two thirds of all the members to effect that obshould be adopted, in order to do away with ject, and also, that in creating, altering, or the very evil with which they were now renewing any charter for private companies, it threatened that of "hasty legislation." should require a vote of two-thirds of the Representatives elected. He had heard some objection made to the last part of the propo

erally, were in favor of the first part, requiring two-thirds of the members to appropriate money out of the Treasury. It there was any serious objections made to the latter clause of the proposition, it could be stricken out.

The Convention had, by a large majority, declared in favor of biennial sessions of the Legislature, as a remedy for hasty or bad le-sition, but he thought that the Convention, gengislation. This, in his opinion, was not only a wide departure from the first principles of republican representative government, but would prove altogether an inadequate remedy for the cvils complained of. Biennial sessions, without other and efficient rules, would only tend to increase and prolong the evils resulting from unwise laws. The latter could only be guard

The question being upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Switzerland, (Mr. Kelso,)