the procedure by which this and other amendments proposed in 1889 were adopted, it was voted down on recommendation of a select committee appointed to investigate the question.87 The amendment was not proposed again until 1897, when it passed both houses by substantial majorities,88 and was readopted by the General Assembly of 1899, and, with the Supreme Court amendment, was submitted to the electors at the general election of 1900.89 At the general election held on November 6, 1900, the lawyer amendment received a majority of the votes cast on that proposition but not a majority of the votes cast at the election, and in the case known as In re Denny, decided at the November term, 1900, the Supreme Court held that the amendment had not been adopted.90 Accordingly, at the session of 1901, immediately succeeding, the General Assembly again adopted the lawyer amendment and submitted it to the next General Assembly for consideration.91 In 1903, the pending lawyer amendment was ignored and the same amendment was adopted de novo by both houses. 92 A somewhat similar amendment was under consideration in the Senate during the same session. This amendment provided that a candidate for admission to the bar must possess the necessary learning and other qualifications to be prescribed by the State Supreme Court. 93 In 1905 the pending lawyer amendment was readopted and submitted to the people. At its convention held on April 11, 1906, the Republicans endorsed this amendment and urged its adoption.95 At the election of 1906, the lawyer amendment for a second time failed of ratification and it was again adopted by the General Assembly of 1907,96 and readopted by the General Assembly of 1909 and submitted to the electors, 97 at the general election of 1910 and again defeated. This provision was contained in the Marshall constitution of 1911 and the Stotsenburg amendments of 1913 but as both measures were defeated, the Constitution still permits the admission of candidates to the bar without academic qualifications. 87. House Journal, 57th Session, 201, 1255, 1256, 1461, 1463; Senate Journal, 114, 143, 145. 88. 89. 90. 91. House Journal, 60th Session, 1571. House Journal, 61st Session, 1188; Laws 560; Senate Journal, 948. 156 Ind. 104. House Journal, 62nd Session, 1780. 92. House Journal, 63d Session, 738. 96. Senate Journal, 65th Session, 2417; House Journal, 2390. Taxation. In spite of the importance of the question of taxation very few attempts have been made to liberalize the financial provision of the Constitution. The first taxation amendment was proposed in 1891, this amendment, which was framed by a select House committee, added a proviso to the present tax provision of the Constitution providing that corporations might be taxed upon their net or gross earning in such manner as the General Assembly should prescribe. The amendment was adopted by the House by a vote of 75-0 and by the Senate by a vote of 411.98 In 1893, this amendment was readopted by the House by a vote of 87-1, but rejected by the Senate by a vote of 16-30.99 In 1909 an amendment was proposed whereby householders whose entire property did not exceed $300 and the property of the veterans of the Civil War and widows and orphans to any amount not exceeding $1,000 might be exempted from taxation. This amendment was indefinitely postponed with very little consideration.1 The Stotsenburg amendments of 1913 contained a provision authorizing the General Assembly to classify different kinds of property and to provide for a different manner and basis of assessment and rate of taxation for each class. In his message to the General Assembly on January 7, 1915, Governor Ralston opposed the adoption of the tax amendment. The existing provision of the Constitution that taxation should be uniform and equal "appeal to a man's innate sense of justice." If there was not uniformity and equality in the assessment of property, "the fault is with the public officials sworn to obey and enforce the law and not with the people's supreme law." By virtue of the proposed amendment, "there is nothing to prevent a legislature from assessing bank stock and brewery stock at 50 cents on the dollar of its true value and the grain and herds of the farm at their full true value. Every legislature would be besieged to lower the rate on certain classes of property and to raise it on others, and at every session of our General Assembly there would be an alignment of interests for a new classification with the result that often the victory would be with the strong.'' This amendment was rejected along with other proposed constitutional changes embraced in the same measure. So pressing had the demand for changes in taxation become, however, that a special commission was created to inves . tigate the whole question of taxation and report to the General Assembly of 1917.3 At its Convention held in 1916, the Republicans adopted a resolution recommending the adoption of a constitutional amendment providing for a limitation of the tax rate.1 and the whole question is now (1916) being discussed during the campaign, and a voluminous tax report is being compiled. Admitting Negroes to the Militia. As originally adopted the present Constitution excluded negroes and mulattoes from service in the State militia. Obviously this discrimination was overlooked in 1880 and 1881 when the other civil and political disabilities of the colored race were removed. In 1885, four years after the adoption of the group of negro enfranchisement amendments, an amendment was adopted admitting negroes to the militia. In 1886, the pending amendment was endorsed by the Republican platform. On account of the deadlock in the General Assembly in 1887 over the election of Lieutenant-Governor, the pending amendment was lost. In 1888, the amendment was again endorsed by the Republicans and was re-adopted in 1889.9 As some doubt existed as to the legality of the procedure in adopting this amendment, it was voted down in 1891 and was not subsequently re-introduced.10 The amendment was incorporated in the Marshall Constitution and the Stotsenburg amendments, but as those measures were both lost, the provision discriminating against negroes is still in operation. Regulation of Railroads. - The first railroad charters in Indiana were granted in 1832. The first actual construction work was done in 1834. On October 1, 1847, the first train reached Indianapolis. The State was at first a partner in these enterprises but retired from active participation in the business about 1852. In 1850 there were 212 miles of railroad in successful operation in the State and upwards of 1,000 miles in addition had been surveyed. The construction of railroads and the inevitable. emergence of the perplexing problems of transportation led to the passage of a considerable body of legislation designed to regulate and control these new agencies of transportation, and within a 3. Laws 1915, 477. 4. 33668 Indiana Daily Times, April 19, 1916. 5. House Journal, 54th Session, 308, 311; Senate Journal, 973. 6. 7. Senate Journal, 55th Session, 799. Indianapolis Journal, August 9, 1888. 8. 9. 10. Senate Journal, 56th Session, 177, 1124; House Journal, 122. comparatively short time after the complete establishment of this new system of transportation, charges of excessive fares, extortionate rates and discrimination in service were made by shippers and patrons. The agrarian agitation which expressed itself with exceptional violence in the middle west was reflected in many ways in the legislation of this State but the problem had not become so acute as to lead to a demand for a fundamental constitutional change until 1871. On January 17, Mr. Wymer a Republican, introduced a resolution in the House proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the General Assembly to enact lawa from time to time establishing reasonable maximum rates for the transportation of freight and passengers, and prohibiting running contracts between railroad companies whereby discrimination was made in favor of any company as against other companies owning connecting roads. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee but was never reported back."1 On January 27, 1873, the House adopted a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into the constitutional authority of the General Assembly to fix the rates for the transportation of freight and passengers over inter-state and intra-state railroads. On March 10, Mr. Hatch, a Republican, introduced a resolution in the House designed to amend the Constitution so as to authorize the General Assembly to establish reasonable maximum rates for the transportation of freight and passengers, and to correct abuses and prevent unjust discriminations and extortions in freight and passenger tariffs. On final vote this resolution failed to receive a constitutional majority, the vote being 419, 20 members being present but not voting.13 As the railroads were being fairly well regulated by law and by commissions created from time to time to prescribe rates and insure the public adequate service, no further attempts were made to incorporate restrictions in the Constitution. In 1901, however, a bill passed the General Assembly authorizing railroad companies to consolidate, but was vetoed by the Governor. In 1903, the same or a similar bill was introduced. It was assumed by the opponents of this measure that the passage of this bill "would be a surrender of the sovereign right of the State the railroad companies, and the deprivation of the courts of the State of the right of jurisdiction over the railroad com over panies." A resolution was, therefore, introduced in the senate proposing an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the consolidation of any and all inter- and intra-state railroads. The Judiciary Committee, to whom this bill was referred for consideration, submitted a divided report, and the majority report, recommending indefinite postponement, was concurred in.14 Control and Suppression of the Liquor Traffic. The first concrete and organized demand for the control and suppression of the liquor traffic by constitutional amendment arose during the fifties when the so-called Maine Law movement was gaining nationwide converts. The temperance people of this State perfected an organization, having local coöperating units scattered throughout the entire State, and they held frequent conventions to devise ways and means of suppressing the liquor traffic. The State temperance convention of 1859 was held in Indianapolis on January 18. Several plans were proposed and considered for the reduction of intemperance. Among these was the proposal that the General Assembly be memorialized to adopt a constitutional amendment conferring on the law-making body the power to enact laws "effectually prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and submitting the same to a vote of the people at a special election." This resolution was defeated and some of the delegates then proposed that a change should be made in the Constitution so as to enable the smallest civil division of the State to vote on the question of prohibiting the sale of liquors as a beverage. This proposition was adopted and in order to embody it in a practicable form, they petitioned the General Assembly then sitting to initiate such a change in the Constitution of the State as shall enable the counties and corporations manage these matters in their own way. 15 to The enactment of more stringent liquor laws, the intervention of the War and the gradual decline of inebriacy conspired to keep this question in partial abeyance for a period of 20 years. In 1878, the Western Yearly Meeting of Friends, held at Plainfield from September 13-19, adopted a resolution demanding the passage of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the liquor traffic in any form within the State. This resolution was introduced in the House on March 10, and in the Senate on March 12, 1879,16 and although it produced no visible results, it constituted a 15. 16. Locomotive, January 22, 1859; Journal, January 19, 1859. |