Ir. BORDEN. I will remark, sir, that I should have proposed such an amendment myself if the gentleman had not done it. I come here instructed in regard to this matter. I am giad the gentleman has proposed it. We have, sir, a precedent for such a provision. I have in my hand the Constitution of California which contains this provision, "Every law shall contain but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." I suppose the object of it is to prevent the practice of log-rolling, as it has been termed by the Legislature. I am satisfied that the correct course is to adopt the provision. Almost every State Convention that has been called for the purpose of revising their Constitution, has inserted a provision of this kind. Mr. CHAPMAN. Gentlemen will find that the operation of such a provision will be to em barrass the Legislature exceedingly. I very much doubt the propriety of passing it. I am willing that the contents of every special law should be specified in the title; but I think it will be almost impossible, if we generalize the laws, to express their contents in the title, unless you duplicate the laws. I think it will lead to much practical difficulty. It will be necessary to make compromises in order to reconcile conflicting interests. Mr. SMITH of Ripley. The provision that we are now about to act upon is one of considerable importance. Gentlemen will recollect that this question has been very elaborately debated. It occupied some five months of the last session of Congress-the object being to ascertain the proper mode of saving the Union. It was contended by Mr. Clay and others that the only possible way in which the Union could be saved was to pass a number of bills together. Mr. Benton and other gentlemen opposed this course, and contended that the Union could not be saved in that way. The measures originally proposed were subsequently passed in connection with each other, although not in one bill, and the Union has been saved. I think the provision now proposed ought to be adopted. Mr. RITCHEY. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Putnam will prevail. I can see no difficulty that is likely to grow out of its practical operation. It is said by some gentlemen who oppose the amendment, that if we classify the laws it will be impossible to comply with this provision. I can see no difficulty in the operation of the rule. If we have a bill passed classifying the subjects, we can have a general head for each particular class of subjects. Suppose the Legislature pass a bill upon the subject of incorporating railroad companies, it will be very easy to class them all under one head. Mr. READ of Monroe said, he wished to assure the gentleman from Putnam (Mr. Steven son) how cordially he was with him in the pres- introduced into the lately made Constitutions, If there had been a single reform principle this of requiring a majority of all the members to pass a law, is one of the most valuable in preventing irresponsible, legislation. When Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe said, he doubted the ayes and noes are required to be entered very much the propriety of adopting this amend-upon the journals for the passage of every bill, ment He thought it would be difficult to carry it into effect. and when a majority of all the members must give their assent thereto before it can become a Now if it should happen that two or more law, there will be safe and careful legislation. subjects are embraced in a bill, the whole law When there must be a majority to pass all laws would have to be pronounced unconstitutional, bolting and other means of escaping responsiand I think it will be found very difficult to con- bility will be prevented. Every member will fine every bill to one specific object. There be obliged to act and to show how he acted. It must be a variety of things embraced in a bill.is the only effective way of keeping full houses. There are occasions upon which there must be Mr. BRIGHT. The title of a bill is no part compromises made. The people of the differ- of the law. An act will have its full force and ent sections of the country cannot think pre-effect without any title whatever. The title is cisely alike. Their interests are different, and their views are different; you must arrange your measures so that there may be a majority to act upon them. It is impossible that the government can be conducted upon any other plan. I am not in favor of omnibus bills. But you have seen what has been necessary to be done in Congress, and so it will be in your Legislature. the last thing generally that is thought of. One objection which I have to the amendment is, that many subjects are sometimes necessarily embraced in one object. We cannot specify the various subjects that will necessarily be connected in any given object. All the difficulties which have been suggested by gentle. men will be overcome, it appears to me, by re quiring the passage of the bill by yeas and nays. If we adopt that system representatives will be more careful in attending to the reading of bills, and more careful in voting upon their provisions, than has heretofore been the case. The evil of careless legislation will, I doubt not, be overcome by the provision to which I have referred. I think it will be a more effectual remedy than that proposed by the gentleman from Putnam. Who is to decide whether a law embraces two or more objects? A MEMBER. "The courts will decide." Mr. BRIGHT. Then the validity of every act will depend upon that which is no part of the act. It will depend upon the title which is appended to the act, not upon the act itself. I think we had better leave this matter as it has heretofore been. Leave it to the Legislature to embrace as many subjects or objects as they please, taking care, however, that those subjects shall be duly considered, and that they shall not be adopted without the yeas and nays being recorded. That I think will be a sufficient remedy for all the evils that are apprehended. Mr. DOBSON. I think the gentleman from Jefferson, although generally right, is wrong in regard to this matter. The bill and the title should correspond. Mr. BRIGHT. The title is no part of the bill. Mr. DOBSON. The title of a bill should be clear and explicit. But under the system of log-rolling, which prevails in the Legislature, it has become, in fact, like a nick name, conveying no true idea of what it purports to indicate. It is no indication of what the contents of the law are. I hold that the title of a bill ought to be correct; that a law should not sail under false colors. It is a duty we owe to the people that every law that is passed should be expressed in plain and simple language, in order that the people may understand it; and it should have its proper title-like a finger-board-so that the people may know where it leads to; or like a sign, so that a man may know its object. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Putnam will be adopted. Mr. READ of Clark. I am in favor of the amendment. I think that much evil has grown out of legislation under our former rule upon this subject. One word in reply to the gentleman from Jefferson. He says that the title of a law is not the law itself. That we all admit, although my friend over the way says it is a kind of a sign-post. I will ask the gentleman from Jefferson this question: Suppose you adopt the amendment which provides that a bill shall contain but one subject, and suppose that a bill shall be passed containing two subjects, will not that bill be unconstitutional? Look at your statute book and you will find many bills, the titles of which run thus: A bill for the relief of Richard Roe, and for other purposes. Well, sir, the "other purposes" may be the establishment of a railroad or a canal. I think we ought to remedy this in some way. Common sense dictates that the title of a bill should express precisely and distinctly what follows in the sections of the bill. I think the amendment ought to be adopted. Mr. HALL. The abuses practiced under our present system of legislation, by incorporating various measures in one bill, is a subject which the people have taken under their consideration; and among other resolutions that have been adopted by them in reference to it, is this one: that special legislatio nshould be prohibited in the State Legislature-that no act should embrace more than one object, and that that object should be expressed in the title-that upon the final passage of every bill in either House the yeas and nays should be entered upon the journal. The provision which requires that no act should embrace more than one subject and that that shall be expressed in the title, I think is one which ought to be adopted by the Convention. And I am in favor, therefore, of the amendment of the gentleman from Putnam. Mr. OWEN. I am in favor of the amendment. fected by it. It will, without doubt, prevent Gentlemen say that nothing is to be efthe same bill. Of this I remember a remarkaincongruous subjects being grouped together in ble example, that came under my own knowledge, while a member of the State Legislature. There was a bill introduced by a member, whose name it is not necessary to mention. The title of the bill was to appropriate a portion of the three per cent. fund, coming to a certain county, "and for other purposes." It was read a first and second time, by its title, as a local bill: on its third reading, some member asked for the reading of the "other purposes;" and it came out that the last section contained a provision divorcing a man from his wife. [Laughter.] Mr. MAGUIRE. I have heard much complaint and there is undoubtedly some ground for the complaint-as to the manner in which legislation has sometimes been conducted in this State. I have a distinct recollection of a case somewhat similar to that referred to by the gentleman from Posey, where a section was inserted. in a bill, otherwise unobjectionable, appropriating the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars for a private and local purpose. The bill had a general title, to which was added the words, and for other purposes." The bill passed both branches of the Legislature, most probably without having been read through in either. It was discovered by the vigilance of Governor Noble, and sent back to the House in which it originated with his veto. On the question of its passage a second time it received but the single vote of the member by whom it was introduced. This and other cases to which reference might. be made, shows the necessity of some measure to prevent their recurrence. The object of the gentleman from Putnam is, therefore, in my judgment, correct and laudable, but I would suggest whether it would not be better to say that the objects, instead of the object, of a bill should be set forth in the title. It may be convenient and proper sometimes to embrace two or more objects or subjects in the same bill. There can be no objection to doing so if the title shall be so worded as to set forth all the purposes of the bill. The intention of the gentleman, no doubt, is to prevent the insertion of provisions not at all indicated by the title of the bill. The intention, as I said before, is a good one, and I think should be carried out; but that can be done without circumscribing the Legislature so that they shall be compelled to embrace but a single object in a bill. If deception be prerented, that is all that the gentleman has in contemplation, and I should think that might be accomplished by requiring that the objects or subjects of a bill shall be clearly defined in the title. Mr. NAVE. There is one question that has not yet been introduced into the argument. It is this: If we declare in the organic law that every law passed by the Legislature of Indiana, shall embrace but one subject, and that subject shall be expressed by its title, and if the Legislature should in some act, introduce two subjects, would not that be a violation of the Constitution-and if a violation of the Constitution will it not entail a curse upon the country in lieu of a blessing! It will be a question for the courts to determine whether more than one subject is included in any one act, and if more than one, it will be unconstitutional, and therefore a nullity. Mr. GIBSON. I move to amend by striking out the word "object," and inserting the word "subject;" and I will remark that it makes a very material difference. I will venture to say that if the word "object" be retained, there will not be a law passed within a dozen years, that will be constitutional. Mr. READ of Clark. I presume the gentleman from Putnam will accept the proposed amendment as a modification. The question was taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was agreed to. The motion to postpone was not agreed to. The yeas and nays were then taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Putnam; and they are-yeas 105, nays 21-as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander, Anthony, Badger, Barbour, Bascom, Beard, Beeson, Berry, Bicknell, Borden, Bourne, Bowers, Bracken, Brookbank, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Chenowith, Cole, Colfax, Crawford, Crumbacker, Davis of Parke, Dick, Dotson, Dunn of Perry, &c., Edmonston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Frisbie, Garvin, Goɔtee, Graham of Miami, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Harbolt, Hardin, Helm, Helmer, Hendricks. Hitt, Hogin, Holman, Huff, Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kendall of Wabash, Lockhart, Logan, Maguire, March, Mather, May, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Moore, Morgan, Mowrer, Niles, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pettit, Prather, Rarden, Read of Clark, Read of Monroe, Ritchey, Robinson, Schoonover, Shannon, Sherrod, Smiley, Snook, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Thomas, Thornton, Tood, Trimbly, Wallace, Watts, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, Yocum, Zenor, and Mr. President-105. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Blythe, Bright, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Conduit, Davis of Madison, Dunn of Jefferson, Gibson, Gordon, Graham of Warrick, Hove, Mooney, Morrison of Marion, Nave, Newman, Pepper of Crawford, Spann, Taylor, and Walpole-21. So the amendment was adopted. The question then being on ordering the section to be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. DUNN of Jefferson moved to amend by providing that if any subject is embraced in a law, and not expressed in the title, the law shall only be void so far as such provision is concerned. I desire to say a few words in explanation of this amendment. Gentlemen, in endeavoring to avoid one difficulty, sometimes run very natweurally into another. How easy would it be for a person opposed to the passage of an act, to defeat it, by heaping up provisions, and accumulating amendments. My object is that, where the provisions embraced in a law are not expressed in the title, such provision shall be void; but the fact of its being in the law shall not render void the whole act. Mr. MORRISON of Marion. I think had better vote down this proposition, for it is one that will cost us a good deal of trouble. Instead of restricting bills to one subject, you will have to branch off into collateral subjects. If you turn to the revised code, you will find an epitome of every act set forth between the title and the body of the act. If this be done, there can be no deception. But for fear the law might be unconstitutional, I would duplicate it: call one the title and the other the law. This will prevent all mistakes. The question being on the amendment of the gentleman from Putnam, the yeas and nays were demanded, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the amendment was, upon a division—ayes 55, noes not counted agreed to. Mr. RARIDEN. I would like to hear the section read. The Secretary read the section as amended. latter part. The words, "it shall be expressed in the bill," is sufficient. It is not to be supposed that a legislative body will be acting fraudulently all the time. It is proper that the title should fairly indicate the substance of the law-that it should be an index to its contents. But do not see the propriety of the latter clause of this section: that so much of the law as is not fully expressed in the title, shall be void. I move to strike out the latter part of the section. The PRESIDENT. It has just been insertel. Mr RARIDEN. Well, let it go; I will not fight about it. The section was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. BORDEN. When the proposition of Mr. RARIDEN. Is the motion debatable? law to protect her in the enjoyment of that property, and the maintenance of her rights over it. The courts of justice must be kept open for the protection of her separate rights. She must be allowed to maintain an action for wrongs or trespasses committed upon her person or property by her husband or others, and this remedy in her own name. You will see that it is the object of the first provision to give her the right to banish the husband from all participation in her property, so that if any usurpation be attempted on his part, she shall have the right to have set apart for her use half of what the husband may be seized of-or any other person for him-excluding, however, what he may hold by way of advancement from his relatives. It is proper to possess the wife of every legal means of redressing wrongs committed upon her by her husband or others. I have read this to show the length it will reach. It will require a great deal of legislation to carry out the rights that will be vested in women, and to protect her in the enjoyment thereof. I dislike the idea of placing it in the Constitution. I will go any length with the gentleman to amend and perfect the law of descents; but a provision which dissevers the sacredness of the marriage relation, I never can consent shall be introduced into the organic law, and make man and wife mere partners in business, in no way bound for each other, or to each other, as the proposition contemplates them. I Mr. NILES. I rise, sir, not to make any remarks upon the main question, but merely to suggest the propriety of postponing this motion to some day certain. The Convention is now Mr. RARIDEN. Well, sir, I am not going earnestly engaged in going through with the to make a speech on the subject. I have sections upon the legislative department; and I thought of it, however, very seriously, and of am convinced that were this motion to be taken its effects, and have endeavored to prepare an up to-day, debate would not be tolerated. amendment, the object of which is to carry out regard the section relating to the rights of marpractically all that is contemplated, as I supried women, which it is now proposed to re-conpose, covertly, in the article itself. I have pre- sider, as of more overruling importance than pared a section very carefully; and in order any other section upon which we shall be called that every gentleman may see what will be the to act. On looking into the proceedings of the practical results of such a provision-for what- New York Constitutional Convention, I see ever may be done for the benefit of married that a proposition of a similar character was women, ought to be done in the right way to at first adopted, but it was subsequently re-concarry out the purpose of the Convention-Isidered and rejected. I can but express will read it; and it will answer for the speech I might make. The object is to carry out the idea of separate property between husband and wife. The object is to put them upon a perfect equality as regards the property and personal rights that they may possess at the time of the marriage, or that they may acquire thereafter: [The section was not furnished us by the Reporter.] If the wife is to have a separate property and a separate existence, it is proper that she should be armed with all the artillery of the my earnest hope that this motion may be taken up under such circumstances, that the of the reasons which I think may be urged Convention will be in a mood to listen to some against the section. I therefore propose that it be postponed until, say, Monday week. SEVERAL MEMBERS. "Next Monday." Mr. NILES. I move, then, that it be postponed until next Monday. The question being taken upon the motion to postpone, it was, upon a division-yeas 56, nays 48-decided in the affirmative. On motion, the Convention adjourned. AFTERNOON SESSION.. House shall deem such suspension necessary; The Convention resumed the considerationken by ayes and noes and recorded. and all votes upon such suspension shall be ta of the orders of the day. The vote on the final passage of every bill The question being on the seventeenth section of the report of the committee on the leg-be entered on the journal; and it shall require shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shali islative department, The section was read by the Secretary, as follows: "Every bill shall be read on three different days in each House, unless, in case of emergency, two-thirds of the House where such bill may be depending, by a vote of yeas and nays, sball deem it expedient to dispense with this e; and the vote on the final passage of every all shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered on the journal. Every bill having passed both Houses, shall be signed by the President and Speaker of both Houses." Mr. DAVIS of Madison. I move to amend the section by inserting after the word "House," in the eighty-third line, the following: "And before the second reading of any bill, the same shall be printed, and a copy thereof laid upon the desk of each member." the votes of a majority of all the members elect of either House to pass any bill. Every bill having passed both Houses, shall be signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. This substitute, which I propose in lieu of that reported from the committee, I re-i gard as involving a matter of great practical moment. I trust, if the Convention is not now ready to adopt it, that the subject will be laid upon the table, until the substitute can be printed for the better information of members. I have no personal interest in this subject, beyond that of any other citizen, but it is one upon which I have heretofore bestowed much reflection, and I must be permitted to say, that I cannot but believe, if the rules which I propose are approved and adopted, they will prevent much of that objectionable legislation, which has induced a majority of the people of the State to pronounce in favor of biennial sessions of the General Assembly, instead of annual. My object in presenting this amendment is simply that the hasty and inconsiderate legislation, which has heretofore characterized this State, should be arrested. The first step taken in order to prevent hasty legislation is, that each I will not go over that ground now, sir. I bill should be read on three different days, and alluded to it at an early period of the session of that the yeas and nays shall be taken on its this body, when the question of the reduction final passage. Now, unless members have the of representation was under consideration. I bill before them, they may be completely in the will only repeat, that whether your sessions dark as to its provisions. It is impossible that are biennial or annual, or whether your repreany man of ordinary capacity can understand sentation be liberal or restricted in numbers, the provisions of many bills by merely hearing you will find such changes of far less consethem read; and we all know, that, in their pro-quence, as remedial to bad legislation, than gress, they may be so altered and amended as proper constitutional rules, founded on the reentirely to change their character. This Consults of experience and progressive improvevention, at the very commencement of its deberations, found the necessity of having each proposed alteration of the old Constitution printed and laid upon the table of each member; and I apprehend that the same rule ought to be observed in the Legislature, especially when we remember that all future legislation is to be of a general character. Mr. CHAPMAN. I have a substitute for that section, which includes the proposition of the gentleman from Madison, (Mr. Davis,) and which I hope will receive the consideration of the Convention. I desire that it may be read. The substitute proposed by Mr. C. was read, as follows: Sec. -. Every bill shall be read at least once in each House, and free discussion allowed thereon. Any bill shall be printed for information, whenever required by one-third of the members of either House; but the vote on the final passage shall not be taken until the third day after the introduction of any bill. None of the foregoing rules shall be suspended, unless, in case of emergency, two-thirds of either ment. We all know, from our experience in this body, that the old rule, requiring that a bill shall have three separate readings on three several days, is of but little real use, inasmuch as it is almost impossible for us fully to comprehend all the bearings of a single section, or proposed amendment of a few lines, except after repeated and careful readings; while, at the same time, we have the printed original before us. How much more difficult must it be to arrive at a correct understanding of a bill of many sections? Without printing, a member must either be guided by the representations of members interested in the passage of a bill, or he must resort to the Clerk's desk and investigate it, if he can get the chance, for himself. The old rule has long been obsolete, and was omitted in the New York Constitution four years ago. For many years it has been practically discarded by most of the State Legislatures and by Congress. It originated in Parliament, probably long before the introduction of printing, and at a period when a majority of |