that it shall be the duty of the secretary of state to lay the same before the General Assembly.

62.

Approved, December 23, 1820.

Referendum on Method of Voting (December 7, 1820).

On December 7, 1820, a resolution was introduced in the House by Samuel Milroy and adopted, instructing the Committee on Elections to inquire into the expediency of submitting the question as to the method of voting to a referendum vote. The Senate resolution on the same subject (Document No. 61) was given precedence and the House resolution was not further considered.

[House Journal, Fifth Session, 78.]

Resolved, That the committee on elections be instructed to enquire into the expediency of providing by law for taking the votes of the electors of this State at the next general election, to ascertain whether they are favorable to a change in the mode of voting, as provided for by the Constitution.

63. Legislative Attempt to Change Method of Voting (December 14, 1821).

[Sixth Session, 1821-22. Jonathan Jennings, Governor, Democratic-Republican.]

At the election held in August, 1821, the vote on the proposition of changing the method of voting from ballot to viva voce was fairly evenly divided; official reports of the referendum vote were received from only fifteen of the thirty-nine counties; as a consequence, the General Assembly was undecided as to the proper action to be taken. Moreover, if no action were taken at the session of 1821, the method of voting would thereafter remain unalterable. Although sentiment was divided in both chambers, as a whole the House was in favor of changing the method of voting and the Senate was opposed. On December 6, 1821, by a vote of 8-7, the Senate rejected a resolution introduced by William Graham providing for the appointment of a committee to prepare a bill to change the method of voting to viva voce. On December 12, the House adopted a resolution introduced by John Tipton providing for the appointment of a committee "to draft and report a bill.... changing the mode of voting from ballot to viva voce." On December 14, the Committee on Elections reported a bill. An attempt to indefinitely postpone the bill was lost by a vote of 10-23, and an attempt to amend to provide "that voters may vote either viva voce or by ballot" by a vote of 15-27. On December 29, after having encountered serious opposition, the bill passed the House by a vote of 23-19, but apparently was never considered by the Senate. Only the title of this bill is given. See Appendix I.

[House Journal, Sixth Session, 224.]

A bill to amend the acts regulating elections and to change the mode of voting from balloting to viva voce.

64. Protest Against Passage of House Bill Changing Method of Voting (December 29, 1821).

The opposition to the passage of the House bill substituting viva voce for ballot voting was so vehement that the following protest, signed by fifteen members of the House, was filed immediately after its passage, on December 29.

[House Journal, Sixth Session, 336.]

The subscribers protest against the passage of an act purporting to change the method of voting from ballot to viva voce:

1st. Because, from the best information obtained, a majority of the qualified electors in the State, who expressed their opinion upon that subject at the last election, decided in favor of ballot, and the report of the chairman of the committee of elections made to this House was partial, containing only 15 counties when there was 39 in the state.

2d. Because such change is calculated to restrain the freedom of elections by subjecting debtors and tenants to the influence of those to whom they are dependent.

Because it leads to personal controversies amongst neighbors, and in the end, is calculated to deter the peaceable citizen from attending the polls.

4th. Because this House has decided, at the present session, that militia elections shall be by ballot, thereby making an unusual, if not an unconstitutional distinction.

5th. Because the constitution provides that the election shall be held on the first Monday of August, and it is believed the votes in many large counties could not all be received in one day.

6th. Because the bill makes no provision for receiving votes in any other way than by ballot, and is, of itself, entirely deficient, and would have no other effect than to distract the public mind with a pretended change, when, in reality, no change would be effected by it, inasmuch as its friends, composing a majority of four of the whole House, refused to have it amended or. committed for amendment so as to provide for the change contemplated in the constitution.

65. Inexpediency of Changing Method of Voting (December 27, 1821).

On December 27, 1821, when it became apparent that the House bill providing for a change in the method of voting would obtain enough votes to insure its passage, the Senate adopted the following resolution, proposed by

Elisha Harrison, by a vote of 8-7, thus definitely forestalling the action of the House on this proposition.

[Senate Journal, Sixth Session, 222.]

WHEREAS the Constitution of this state provides that the election for members to the General Assembly, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, members to Congress &c. shall be holden on the first Monday in August annually; and whereas in consequence of such provision it would be entirely impossible for the votes of each county to be taken at the county seat in one day, and thereby defeat the beneficial consequences which might result from having elections held at one place, in order that candidates for office might have it in their power to refute the falsehoods and misrepresentations which are too frequently circulated for the accomplishment of improper purposes.

Therefore be it resolved by the Senate, That it is inexpedient at this time to change the mode of voting to viva voce, and that the House of Representatives be informed thereof.

66.

Resolution of Condemnation (December 29, 1821).

The House was greatly displeased at the action of the Senate in adopting the resolution of December 27, 1821, opposing a change in the method of voting. Accordingly, the following resolution was proposed, on December 28 by Zenas Kimberly, criticising the Senate for its action, but was rejected by vote of 16-25.

[House Journal, Sixth Session, 306.]

WHEREAS it is provided by the Constitution of this state, Article 6, Sec. 2, that the General Assembly may if they deem it more expedient at their session in the year 1821, change the mode of voting so as to vote viva voce after which time it shall remain unalterable; and whereas the General Assembly, acting upon the clear correct and immutable principles of republicanism, did by their joint resolution of the 23d December, 1820, authorize and request the qualified electors, at their August election to express on their tickets whether they were in favor of voting by ballot or by viva voce, thereby intimating in terms not to be misconceived, that the Representatives then and there to be chosen, should be governed by the vote of their constituents. And whereas the House of Representatives, from the circumstance of their having been elected at a period when that point was particularly submitted to the people, ought to be considered the organ of the popu

lar will, in preference to the Senate; a majority of whom held their seats without reference to that subject:

Resolved, therefore, That the resolution reported from the Senate yesterday on the subject of voting, inasmuch as it can be viewed in no other light than a direct attempt to forstall the decision of the house be and the same is hereby declared to be unparliamentary, and that it be returned to the Senate with a copy of this resolution.

67. Calling a Constitutional Convention (December 27, 1821).

On December 27, 1821, the day on which the Senate adopted the resolution expressing its sentiment in opposition to a change in the method of voting, a bill was introduced in the Senate by Elisha Harrison, authorizing the qualified electors to vote on the proposition of calling a constitutional convention. This bill passed the Senate on December 29, the same day on which the resolution authorizing a change in the method of voting, was adopted by the House, by a vote of 9-6. The House was still in bad humor over the adoption of the adverse Senate resolution and a motion was made to reject the Senate bill and carried on December 29, by a vote of 23-13. Only the title of this bill has been preserved.

[Senate Journal, Sixth Session, 231.]

A bill authorizing the qualified voters of the different counties at the next August election to vote for or against a convention for the revision of the . Constitution of this State.

68.

Calling a Constitutional Convention (January 6, 1823).

[Seventh Session, 1822-23. William Hendricks, Governor, Democratic-Republican.]

On December 12, 1822, the following resolution, introduced by Elisha Harrison, was adopted by the Senate, providing for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the expediency of submitting the question of calling a constitutional convention to the people. A committee of five members was appointed at once.

[Senate Journal, Seventh Session, 69.]

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed to enquire into the expediency of a law to authorize the qualified voters throughout the state, at the next August election, to vote for or against calling a convention for the revision of the state constitution; with leave to report by bill or otherwise.

On December 23, a bill, prepared by this committee, was introduced. It passed the Senate on December 29 and the House on January 1, 1823. See Appendix II.

[Laws, Seventh Session, 121.]

AN ACT to authorize the qualified voters of this State to vote for or against a Convention for the revision of the Constitution of this State. Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of

Indiana, That the qualified voters of the different townships throughout this state, be and they are hereby authorized, on the first Monday of August next, when they vote for senators and representatives, to express by vote, on the same ticket, at the bottom thereof, whether they are in favor, or against calling a convention, for the revision of the constitution of this state; which vote shall be expressed in one of the following words, to wit: "convention," or "no convention, as the case may be.

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the inspectors and judges, in the different townships in each county, to receive, count, and make a true return, of all the votes given, as contemplated in the foregoing section, at the same time, and in the same manner, that they count and make returns of votes given for senators and representatives: and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the circuit court, in each and every county, throughout the state, to seal and forward to the secretary of state, on or before the first Monday of December next, a certificate under his hand and seal, of all the votes taken as aforesaid; and should any of the clerks of the circuit court, fail or neglect to perform the duty enjoined on him by this act, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars for such neglect, recoverable by presentment or indictment, in any court having competent jurisdiction.

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the secretary of state, to lay before the next General Assembly, on the second Monday in December next, all the returns by him received, pursuant to the provisions of this act.

Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the clerks of the circuit courts, when they make out the poll books, for the general election, to make out and rule two separate columns in the same, for the purpose of tallying the votes taken, as contemplated by this act.

69.

Approved, January 6, 1823.

Committee on Unconstitutional Laws (January 13, 1824). [Eighth Session, 1823-24. William Hendricks, Governor, Democratic-Republican.] On January 13, 1824, a resolution was introduced in the Senate by James B. Slaughter providing for the appointment of a committee to examine all laws passed since the organization of the State government to ascertain how many laws there were which infringed any provisions of the Constitution. Upon consideration, the resolution was indefinitely postponed on the same day.

[Senate Journal, Eighth Session, 148.]

Mr. Slaughter asked and obtained leave to lay before the Senate, a resolution relative to the appointment of a constitutional

10-5055