Governor declined to make any recommendation, and opinion in the General Assembly was seriously divided. Although the General Assembly finally adjourned without providing for the call of a convention, several measures were under consilration in both houses. On December 10, 1846, a bill was introduced in the House by Cyrus L. Dunham (Whig), providing for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention. On December 11, the bill was laid on the table. On December 12, that part of the Governor's message relating to a constitutional convention was referred to a select committee of one member from each judicial circuit (6 Democrats and 6 Whigs). On December 28, the House bill was taken from the table and referred to this committee. On January 1, 1847, the select committee submitted a majority and two minority reports. The majority report signed by 1 Whig and 5 Democrats recommending the passage of the bill with amendments was as follows:

[House Journal, Thirty-first Session, 278.]

The select committee to whom was referred House bill No. 5, entitled "An act providing for holding a convention to revise and amend the constitution of the State of Indiana," have had the same under consideration, and a majority thereof have instructed, me to report the same back to the House with the accompanying amendments, and when so amended, to recommend its passage, and the committee ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject:

Amend the preamble by striking out all after "majority of," in the tenth line, and insert the following: "the votes given at said election, in reference to calling such convention, was given in favor of calling the same therefor."

Amend section 8, in the second line, by inserting before the word "candidates", "candidates or'', and by inserting after said word "person.

3. Amend section 12, in the second and third lines, by striking out the words "president thereof", and inserting in lieu thereof, "Governor of the State."

4. Amend section 16, in the second line, by striking out "three" and inserting in lieu thereof "two."

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

The first minority report on the House bill providing for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention was signed by five Whig members of the committee, and recommended that the bill be indefinitely postponed for the reasons that: (1) a majority of the electors had not voted in favor of a constitutional convention; (2) there were grave doubts whether a convention could be called oftener than once in twelve years; (3) the apathy displayed by

the electorate did not evince any very strong demand to secure amendments in the constitution; and (4) there were likewise serious doubts as to the expediency of calling a convention.

[House Journal, Thirty-first Session, 278.]

The undersigned, a minority of the select committee to which was referred the bill providing for calling a convention to alter, revise, or amend the constitution of this State, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

That, after giving to the important matter submitted to their consideration all the attention which their limited time would permit, they regret to find themselves compelled to dissent from the views of the majority of the committee, who have (as they think), unwarrantedly assumed that, in the meagre vote cast by the people for and against calling a convention at the late gubernatorial election, they have decided, by a constitutional majority in favor of calling a convention to alter, revise, or amend the constitution of the State. The undersigned are at a loss to conceive how any person, under the most latitudinarian system of construction, can find any thing in the letter or spirit of the constitution to justify the conclusions to which the majority of the committee have arrived, and which they seem to think justify their reporting the bill back to the House, with a recommendation in favor of its passage. That the House may fully understand the reasons upon which our opinions are founded, we ask its candid attention to so much of the first section of the eighth article of the constitution as set forth the mode and manner in which that instrument shall be amended. It provides that

"Every twelfth year after this constitution shall have taken effect (1816), at the general election had for Governor, there shall be a poll opened, in which the qualified electors of the State shall express, by vote, whether they are in favor of calling a convention or not; and if there should be a majority of ALL the votes given at such election in favor of a convention, the Governor shall inform the next General Assembly thereof; whose duty it shall be to provide by law for the election of members to the convention, the number thereof, and the time and place of meeting; and which law shall not be passed unless agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to both branches of the General Assembly", etc.

Now, nothing appears more conclusive to our minds than that the majority" contemplated in this provision (to repeat the language of the constitution itself), was "a majority of all the votes

given at such (gubernatorial) election.". The framers of the constitution, as if particularly anxious to guard against the instability and love of change natural to man, immediately after, expressly provide, also, that the law calling a convention shall not pass, unless agreed to by a majority of ALL the members ELECTED to both branches of the General Assembly. Thus it will be seen that a majority of all the members present (although constituting a quorum) cannot, as in ordinary cases of legislation, pass the bill calling a convention now before the House-a fact, in our opinion, calculated to confirm still more, the conviction that where the word "majority" is used in the preceding part of the section, it means just what it says, viz.: "a majority of all the votes cast at such (gubernatorial) election."

So far from a majority of all the persons voting at the late election favoring the call of a convention, that the Governor informed the legislature in his late annual message, that only "32,521 votes were cast for, and 27,485 against it." His excellency further adds (as if to express his doubt, if not his opinion, on the subject), that the aggregate number of votes returned as having been cast upon that question, is less than one half of the number of voters who attended the polls and voted upon other questions; and that, from thirteen counties, no returns whatever, have been received." The whole number of polls in the State, according to the same authority, is 126,969, which shows that only a small fraction over one fourth of the legal votes of the people were cast in favor of calling a convention! whilst the voters of thirteen. organized counties (judging from the absence of returns from them) do not appear to have known that any such question was at all submitted to their consideration and decision! Have we any evidence that, in these thirteen counties, the sheriffs complied with the requisitions of the sixth section of the act of January last, providing for the vote on calling a convention, or that they had given the required notice of six weeks that such a poll would be opened? or that the judges of the elections opened a poll, in which to "enter all the votes given for and against" the call, as required by the first section of the same law? The act of last session is universally acknowledged to be very vague and inexplicit in many particulars, but especially as to whether the votes given for other officers would be counted for or against a convention where the voter was silent on the subject; and yet, defective as the act is, and difficult as it is to be understood, we have no evidence that its

provisions have been carried out or complied with by the sheriffs and judges of elections in the thirteen counties referred to.

The eighth article, before quoted, further provides that, "if there should be a majority of all the votes given at such election", in favor of a convention, "the Governor shall inform the next General Assembly thereof." The question then is, has such constitutional majority been cast; and if so, has the Governor complied with the imperative injunction of the constitution? Had he believed the vote was such as to authorize the call of a convention, can any one doubt that he would, as in duty bound, have frankly and explicitly said so? Instead, however, of giving his opinion affirmatively, he very significantly says, that "less than one half of the number of voters who attended the polls, and voted upon other questions', voted for and against a convention, and that, from thirteen counties, no returns whatever have been received." Thus, in addition to the plain common sense of the case, the minority think they may fairly quote the high authority of our State executive against the assumption of the majority of your committee, that the constitutional majority of the people, at the late election, have decided in favor of the call of a convention.

If it were necessary, numerous instances could be given, where gentlemen of high legal acquirements refused to vote at the late election either for or against a convention, under the impression that their votes cast for one or the other of the gubernatorial candidates would be counted in the negative against it. That an act so ambiguous should be misunderstood or misconceived by thousands of humble citizens, is not at all to be wondered at. Others again (and this number is far from inconsiderable), believed that the clause of their constitution providing for such vote every twelfth year was not only declaratory of the imperative duty of the General Assembly to do so, at the periods stated, but that it also operated as a limitation of the power of the legislature to do so, at any other period, during the intervening time. The very large class of citizens who honestly entertained these views, and who, therefore, declined to vote under what they conscientiously believed to be an unconstitutional act, may be fairly and legitimately counted with the minority of the votes cast against a convention, and, we have no hesitation in saying, if added to the 27,485 who voted against the expediency of the call, they would form an aggregate greatly outnumbering the meagre majority of 5,036 in its favor. If to this there be added all those who construed the constitutional provision providing for its own amendment,

66

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