INDIANA. 



393 



consequence of all this is that politics become embit- 

 tered ; that neighbors who, in their business transac- 

 tions, would place implicit confidence in each other, 

 believe that, to obtain a party advantage, they would 

 quarter false voters^ encourage repeating, and connive 

 at a false count ot the ballots, and that the young, 

 learning and believing that fraud is perpetrated with- 

 out disgrace by the most respectable persons, in what 

 they arc taught to be the most important of transac- 

 tions, are not able to draw the refined distinction which 

 would make it wrong or disgraceful to perpetrate frauds 

 in less important ones. Tnus the foundations' of pri- 

 vate virtue are sapped by tolerance given to public 

 fraud. 



The proposed amendments to the Constitu- 

 tion, seven in number, explained in the " An- 

 nual Cyclopaedia" for 1879, were submitted to 

 the people in the spring elections held on the 

 first Monday in April. The number of votes 

 cast for and against the amendments was an- 

 nounced by the Governor's proclamation issued 

 April 18. A larger number of votes having 

 been cast in their favor than against them, it 

 was supposed that the amendments had been 

 carried, and were a part of the Constitution. 

 But in a case arising from a city election in 

 May, in which the counting of the ballot of a 

 man who had voted in accordance with the first 

 of the amendments was contested, it was de- 

 cided by the Supreme Court that the amend- 

 ment had not been ratified by the people in the 

 manner prescribed by the Constitution, and, 

 therefore, was not a part of the organic law. 

 The number of votes cast for the other amend- 

 ments was larger than the number for the 

 first ; but the principle laid down by the Su- 

 preme Court was held to apply in the casa 

 of all of them, and was so acted upon. The 

 Court based its decision on the tenor of the 

 Constitutions of 1816 and 1851, and on histori- 

 cal evidence as to the intention of the f ramers 

 of the Constitution contained in the constitu- 

 tional debates. In the election of officers a 

 plurality vote is sufficient, but in the adoption 

 of constitutional amendments it is decided that 

 a majority vote of the electors of the State, 

 which the opinion, agreed in by Judges Howk, 

 Warden, and Biddle, construes to mean a ma- 

 jority of the votes cast at the election, though 

 one of them held that the majority should be 

 ascertained from census statistics ; while Judges 

 Niblack and Scott dissented from the opinion. 

 The conclusion of the Court on the case in point 

 was as follows: 



This Court holds that it requires at least a majority 

 of all the votes cast at the same election to ratify a con- 

 stitutional amendment. We also hold that, as the act 

 of March 10, 1879, is defective in not providing for the 

 count of the aggregate number of votes cast through- 

 out^ the State on the day of the election, or in not pro- 

 viding some means to find out the whole number of 

 votes cast, by which it might be learned what propor- 

 tion the number cast in tavpr of the ratification bore 

 to the whole number, there is no source from which 

 this Court can ascertain whether the amendment re- 

 ceived a majority of all the votes cast at the election or 

 not. As the amendment was submitted upon the day 

 of the general spring elections throughout the State, 

 and as there were, by law, officers to elect at the same 

 time in the various counties, it must be presumed that 

 other votes than those for or against the amendment 



were cast at the same time. From the peculiar ballots 

 used in voting upon the amendment, many electors 

 may have voted "no" and " yes" upon the question 

 of the amendment, which votes would not be counted ; 

 such also would be counted in estimating the whole 

 number of electors voting. It is also held that the 

 Constitution must remain as it was before the amend- 

 ment was submitted, until it shall affirmatively appear 

 that the amendment is ratified. As it does not thus 

 affirmatively appear, we must hold that the amend- 

 ment is not ratified by a constitutional majority. The 

 opinion, therefore, of this Court is that it requires a 

 majority of the electors of the State to ratify an amend- 

 ment to the Constitution, but that the whole number 

 of votes cast at the election at which the amendment 

 is submitted may be taken as the number of electors in 

 the State. 



The decision, as interpreted by the Court, 

 did not affirm the rejection of the amendment, 

 but a simple act of the Legislature being re- 

 quired for its submission to the people again 

 for ratification. On this point the words of the 

 opinion are as follows : 



In the opinion of this Court the consequence, spoken 

 of in argument, of this decision can at most be but a 

 temporary inconvenience. We perceive no irregular- 

 ity in the proposal of the amendment for ratification. 

 It has simply not boen ratified, and not been rejected. 

 The vote upon it was ineffectual for want of the con- 

 stitutional majority. We see no reason why the Gen- 

 eral Assembly may not resubmit the amendment to 

 the electors of the 'State, under an amended act, such 

 as experience may prove to be sufficient to present the 

 question to the Courts if it ever should arise again. 



The question of the adoption of the constitu- 

 tional amendments was implicated in the poli- 

 tics of the State, and the decision of the Su- 

 preme Court upon it became the subject of 

 partisan recriminations. Amendment ' No. 1 

 requires, in addition to the six months' residence 

 in the State demanded by the Constitution as it 

 is, a residence of sixty day sin the township and 

 of thirty days in the voting precinct as a quali- 

 fication for voting. Amendments No. 2 and 1 

 conform the Constitution to the United States 

 Constitutional Amendment extending the suf- 

 frage to colored citizens, and expunging the 

 prohibition of the immigration of colored peo- 

 ple, and are purely formal. Amendment No. 3 

 changes the date of the general State elections 

 from October to November, so as to make them 

 fall on the same day as the national elections. 

 The other amendments, numbered 5, 6, and 9, 

 numbers 7 and 8 having failed to pass the Leg- 

 islature, relate, the first to salaries, the sixth to 

 the reconstruction of the judicial system, and 

 the third to the restriction of the powers of 

 counties, cities, and towns to make debts. 

 Governor-elect Porter, in his inaugural, spoke 

 of the decision of the Court and the amend- 

 ments in the following terms : 



The amendments to the Constitution, which at the 

 last spring election were submitted to the electors for 

 adoption or rejection, have been held by the Supreme 

 Court, in opposition to what, it is believed, had, pre- 

 viously to the decision, been the general sense of the 

 legal profession, not to have been constitutionally 

 adopted. 



The Court, while deciding thus, took occasion to ex- 

 press an opinion that another submission might take 

 place, notwithstanding the submission and vote which 



