tion that members were to receive no compensation for their services after the first 90 days of a regular session and the first 40 days of a special session. The amendment was adopted by the House and referred to the Senate. The Senate amended the resolution to provide for unlimited sessions, with the restriction that the pay of members was to cease after the first 61 days of a regular session and the first 40 days of a special session and in this form it was adopted by a vote of 26-15. The House, however, never acted upon the resolution as amended by the Senate.18 In his message to the General Assembly on November 14, 1872, Governor Baker condemned the constitutional limitation on legislative sessions as pernicious. The growth of the State in wealth and population and the increase and diversity of subjects requiring legislative attention rendered it impracticable for the General Assembly to transact all the business demanding its attention in 61 days, even when no extraordinary events occurred to impede and prevent legislative action. In 1873 one of the amendments reported by the select constitutional committee of the Senate provided that the duration of a regular legislative session should be 100 days. This amendment was agreed to by the Senate but rejected by the House by a vote of 49-23.19 In 1877, an amendment was adopted by the Senate, by a vote of 33-11, and by the House, by a vote of 55-19, fixing a regular session at 121 days and a special session at 60 days.20 In 1879, this amendment, then pending consideration, was readopted by the Senate by a vote of 44-5, but rejected by the House by a vote of 23-70.21 In his inaugural address, delivered on January 12, 1885, Governor Gray approved the 61 day limit imposed on legislative sessions; the world was governed too much; too many laws were enacted; and this principle had doubtless actuated the framers of the Constitution "in restricting the length of our legislative sessions." The fact that this provision had been "so long sanctioned by the people without an effort to change it, argues well its wisdom as a measure tending to serve the best interests of all the people of the State." The Governor thereupon half conceded the untenability of the position which he had assumed by urging each legislator to "diligently and earnestly coöperate with his fellowmembers in perfecting and advancing the most important meas 18. Senate Journal, 45th Session, 753 and 835. 19. Senate Journal, 48th Session, 1031. 20. Senate Journal, 50th Session, 621. 21. House Journal, 51st Session, 287. ures. The foregoing discussion adequately disproves the assertion that no effort had been made to change this provision.22 In spite of the Governor's admonition, the House adopted a resolution on February 19, fixing a regular session at 100 days and special sessions at 50 days, but the Senate became involved in the question of fixing the compensation of members of the General Assembly and the whole proposition was finally postponed.23 In 1889, the General Assembly actually adopted an amendment providing that all regular and special sessions should continue "until the legislative and all other business required to be effected thereby shall have been completed, or so long as by the members thereof may be deemed advisable." The demand for longer sessions was undoubtedly pronounced as the resolution passed the House by a vote of 78-2 and the Senate by a vote of 44-1.24 At the beginning of the succeeding session of the General Assembly in 1891, a senate committee reported that grave doubt existed as to whether the pending amendments, including the amendment providing unlimited sessions of the General Assembly, had been properly adopted. The amendments were therefore rejected and the process of adoption begun de novo. The amendment relative to the duration of legislative sessions was altered somewhat and provided merely that regular sessions should not exceed 100 days in duration, leaving the rest of the provision unchanged. As thus drafted the resolution passed the House by a vote of 75-0 and the Senate by a vote of 41-1.25 At the succeeding session of 1893 this. resolution was adopted by the House by a vote of 53-40 and by the Senate by a vote of 38-7. The Senate, however, experienced an abrupt change of sentiment and later on the same day on which the resolution was adopted by an almost unanimous vote, the measure was reconsidered and rejected by a vote of 20-19.26 The subject was not considered again until 1899 when a resolution was introduced in the Senate fixing the duration of a regular session at 120 days and prohibiting the General Assembly from considering any business at a special session except such as was included in the Governor's call. The measure was indefinitely postponed without serious consideration.27 On March 11, the ast day of the session of 1907, an amendment extending the term 22. House Journal, 54th Session, 62. of a legislative session to 100 days was prepared by two Republican and two Democratic senators and introduced in the upper house and passed under suspension of the rules by a vote of 340. The lateness of the day prevented the House from taking any definite action on the amendment.28 One of the amendments proposed by the so-called Marshall Constitution of 1911 fixed the duration of a regular session at 100 days, reduced the term of a special session to 30 days and forbade the General Assembly from considering any business at a special session which was not specifically set forth in the Governor's call.29 As the procedure in adopting this Constitution was declared invalid by the highest court, no further action was taken on this amendment. At the ensuing session of 1913, after the rejection of the proposed new constitution by the Supreme Court, Senator Stotsenburg introduced a series of amendments embracing the more important changes included in the Marshall constitution. When these amendments were under consideration in the House, an additional amendment was proposed and adopted by unanimous consent providing that the General Assembly at any regular session should remain in session for 30 days, unless sooner adjourned, for the purpose of introducing bills; a recess of not less than 60 days was then prescribed during which time the proposed bills should be considered by the members of the General Assembly and their constituents; on a day fixed by the previous session the General Assembly was to reconvene for the purpose of approving, voting on and enacting the proposed bills into laws. The duration of both halves of the session, inclusive, was fixed at 61 days.30 This provision substantially fulfilled the recommendation made by Governor Marshall in his biennial message to the General Assembly on January 5, 1911, in which he advanced the opinion that "it would conduce to good legislation if the Constitution were amended so as to provide for a legislative session in December for the introduction. and amendment of bills and for a second session, following an adjournment until the first Monday in May, for the placing of bills upon their final passage.''31 When the Stotsenburg amendments were sent to the conference committee to adjust the differences between the two Houses, the amendment providing for bisected sessions was eliminated32 and the subject of the character or duration of legislative sessions has not since been considered. Number, Compensation and Apportionment of Senators and Representatives. No provision of the Constitution was the subject of a more prolonged or animated discussion than the section fixing the number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives. As reported from committee, the membership of the House was fixed at not less than 60 nor more than 75 and the Senate at not less than one-third nor more than one-half of the membership of the House. During the discussion on the floor of the Convention, which extended over a period of several days, several radically divergent proposals were made, and the provision which was finally adopted was a compromise, fixing the maximum number of senators at 50 and the House at 100. This was practically the number then allowed by law under the apportionment act of 1851,34 and the number which was fixed by the next succeeding apportionment act of 1857.35 The compensation of members was not fixed by the Constitution but was left to the discretion of the General Assembly. By an act approved June 4, 1852, the per diem of senators and representatives was fixed at $3 and mileage at the rate of $3 for each 25 miles necessarily traveled in going to and returning from the seat of Government.36 On January 23, 1855, a resolution was introduced in the House declaring it to be the sense of that body that the number of senators and representatives could be reduced without detriment to the public service and instructing the Committee on Apportionment to fix the number of senators at 30 and the number of representatives at 70, and to increase the compensation of members to $4 per day. When the resolution was under consideration, an unsuccessful attempt was made to fix the number of senators at 24 and the number of representatives at 100. The recommendation that the compensation of members of the General Assembly be increased to $4 per day was defeated by a vote of 51-29. The resolution was laid on the table and was given no further considera 32. Senate Journal, 68th Session, 1959. 33. Following are some of the proposals: House: One member for each county, but not more than 120; Senate not less than one-third nor more than one-half the membership of the House. House, 80; Senate, 40; House 70; Senate, 30; House, 115; Senate, 35; House, 116: Senate, 34: See Conv. Journal, 354, 361-4, 366, 372-5, 385-7. tion.37 Two years later, in 1857, a resolution instructing the House Judiciary Committee to enquire into the expediency of amending the Constitution to provide that each county should be entitled to one representative in the lower house, was promptly rejected.38 In 1859, a resolution was introduced in the House proposing to reduce the number of senators to 30 and the number of representatives to 75 in order to lighten the burden of taxation and because a lesser number of members would do the business of the General Assembly "with more dispatch, equally as well, and perhaps better."39 In 1861, three resolutions were under consideration, one proposing to reduce the membership of the Senate to 36 and the House to 72; a second to fix the membership of the Senate at 15 and the House at 30; and a third to reduce the number of senators to 30 and the representatives to 60. None of these resolutions were seriously considered.40 In 1889 an elaborate plan for the apportionment of senators and representatives was presented in the House but was indefinitely postponed.41 In 1895, a plan for apportioning senators and representatives and providing for proportional representation was embodied in a resolution which was introduced in the House. According to the provisions of this plan, the Senate would consist of 60 members, chosen from 20 senatorial districts, in such manner that not more than two senators from any district would belong to the same political party. The membership of the House of Representatives was to be based on population and each county was to have one representative for every 25,000 persons resident therein. The resolution was reported favorably by committee but it was never advanced to maturity.42 In 1897 an amendment fixing the membership of the Senate at 25 and the House at 50 was proposed but was never reported from committee.43 In 1901 an amendment to the Constitution was proposed prescribing the manner of apportioning senators and representatives. The provisions of the amendment are rather ambiguous and contradictory but the obvious purpose of the measure was to prevent 37. House Journal, 1855, 201, 224. 38. House Journal, 1857, 521; Indianapolis Sentinel, February 13, 1857. 39. House Journal, 40th Session, 213. House Journal, 41st Session 578, 1043, 380; Senate Journal, 607. 40. 10-5055 |