inaugural address. He there advanced the ambitious scheme of substituting proportional for majority representation; he illustrated very aptly some of the inequalities of the latter method and adverted to a similar proposal which had been submitted to the consideration of the Congress of the United States.

[House Journal, Forty-eighth Session, 80.]

In this connection I wish to call attention to the subject of representative reform, which, during the last ten years, has been advocated by some of the best minds, both in Europe and this country, and is now undergoing the test of experience. I desire to make this the more emphatic, because in this State it seems yet to be regarded as right and proper, for the majority to deny to the minority even that representation, which an apportionment based upon population, and contiguity of counties would give. Representative reform rests upon the proposition that minorities of constituencies should have a representation as nearly in proproportion to numbers as may be practicable. All the citizens contribute to the burdens of government, and should yield obedience to the laws, and it is just, equal, and fair that all should be represented. One of the ablest of English statesmen, in the debate in the House of Lords, on the reform bill of 1867, suggested this illustration: suppose a representative district has ten thousand voters, and six thousand are of one side in politics, and four thousand of the other, would that district not be better represented if both the six thousand and the four thousand were represented, than if the votes of either be wholly rejected, and without influence and power? He added: "I can well understand men who are extremely intolerant and exclusive in politics, objecting to give any voice to those whose political views are distasteful to them; but I cannot understand such an objection being urged by those who are in favor of having public opinion. fairly represented."

The advantages of this reform are obvious. Political asperities would be modified; local satisfaction would be produced; the temptation to corruption and bribery at elections would be greatly removed; and security and premanency would be given to the influence and power of the minority, thus securing a check upon the majority, should it become arrogant or unscrupulous, so that legislation would proceed more for the people and less for party.

This constituted a striking feature in the great reform measure of 1867 in England, a measure which greatly increased the powers

9-5055a

and fortified the rights of the industrial classes in that country. It was partially adopted in the selection of delegates to the constitutional convention of 1867, in New York; it is recognized in the selection of jury commissioners and election officers in Pennsylvania; and is an important provision in the new Constitution of the great State of Illinois. This reform has also been the subject of careful consideration in Congress. On the 2d of March, 1869, Mr. Senator Wade, from a select committee, reported a bill providing for its adoption in the election of members of Congress. I will not undertake an examination of the different propositions whereby representative reform may be attained; that will be carefully considered by the legislature, should a constitutional amendment on the subject be submitted to the people; but as a practical illustration of one of the modes, I quote the bill as reported to the Senate by Mr. Senator Wade: "A bill to amend the representation of the people in Congress. Be it enacted, etc. That in elections for the choice of representatives to the Congress of the United States, whenever more than one representative is to be chosen from a State each elector of such State duly qualified, shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of representatives to be chosen from the State, and may give all such votes to one candidate, or may distribute them, equally or unequally, among a greater number of candidates, and the candidates highest in vote upon the return shall be declared elected."

THE FORTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1875 AND THE SPECIAL SESSION OF 1875.

The forty-ninth General Assembly of 1875 was predominantly Democratic. The Senate was composed of 23 Democrats, 22 Republicans and 5 Independents, and the House of 60 Democrats, 32 Republicans and 8 Independents. The regular session expired by constitutional limitation on January 8, 1875, and a special session was called by Governor Hendricks to meet the following day because of “a failure to pass laws indispensable to the administration of the State government, including the revenue and general appropriation bills ." The General Assembly of 1875 was competent to act on the proposed constitutional amendments submitted by the General Assembly of 1873, and although these measures were considered, none were advanced to maturity.

293. Pending Amendments Concerning Suffrage, Supreme Court Judges, Municipal Debt Limit and Special Judicial Elections (January 15, 1875).

The pending amendments, adopted by the General Assembly of 1873, were introduced in the House on January 15 by Mr. Samuel Woody, a

Republican; on January 18, the resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee; on January 27, the committee reported the resolution back to the House without recommendation; on February 10, the resolution was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 50-41.

[House Journal, Forty-ninth Session, 160.]

A joint resolution agreeing to and adopting amendments proposed to the Constitution of the State by the last General Assembly by the following changes and additions:

Amending Article 2, Section 2, by striking out Section 5 of Article 2; amending Section 4 of Article 4; amending Section 2 of Article 7; amending by striking out all of the sections of Article 13 and inserting in lieu thereof Section 1; amending Article 7 by adding thereto Section 22: WHEREAS, The last General Assembly at the regular session thereof, passed, adopted and agreed to the following joint resolution to wit: A joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by amending Article 2, Section 2; by striking out Section 5, Article 2; amending Section 4 of Article 4; amending Section 5 of Article 4; amending Section 2 of Article 7; amending by striking out all of the sections in Article 13, and inserting in lieu thereof Section 1, and amending further by adding to Article 7 Section 22.

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the following amendments to the Constitution of the State of Indiana be submitted to the people of this State for their adoption or rejection. Provided, The same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house of the General Assembly of this State, to be chosen at the next general election. Said amendments to consist of the following additions and changes of the aforesaid articles and sections of articles of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, in the following language:

Sec. 2. Amend Article 2 Section 2 to read as follows: Section 2. In all elections not otherwise provided for by the Constitution every male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards who shall have resided in the State during the twelve months, and in the county three months immediately preceding such election, and every male of foreign birth of the age of twenty-one years and upwards who shall have resided in the United States one or more years, and shall have resided in the State during the twelve months and in the county three months immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen of the United States

conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he shall have resided for the thirty days immediately preceding such election.

Sec. 3. Amend by striking out Section 5 of Article 2.

Sec. 4. Amend Section 4 of Article 4 by striking out of the same the word "white."

Sec. 5. Amend Section 5 of Article 4 by striking out of the same the word "white."

Sec. 6. Amend Section 2 of Article 7, to read as follows: Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of not less than five nor more than seven judges, a majority of whom shall form a quorum. They shall hold their offices for six years if they so long behave well; Provided, That the judges elected at the first election after the taking effect of this amendment, shall be divided by lot into three classes as nearly as may be. The fraction to be in the last class, and the seats of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of two years; those of the second class at the expiration of four years, and those of the third class at the expiration of six years, so that one-third as nearly as practicable, shall be chosen biennially forever thereafter.

Sec. 7. Amend by striking out all of the sections in Article 13 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Section 1. No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount in the aggregate exceeding five per centum on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State or county purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness, and all bonds or obligations in excess of such amount given by such corporations shall be void.

Sec. 8. Amend further by adding the following section to Article 7, Section 22: The election for judicial officers may be provided for by the General Assembly to take place at such time when no other election is pending. Resolved further, That the foregoing joint resolution be, and the same is, hereby referred to the General Assembly of this State, to be chosen at the general election to be held on the second Tuesday in October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four. Now be it

Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the said amendments proposed to the Constitution of the State of Indiana contained in said joint resolution, passed by the last

General Assembly, as aforesaid and hereinbefore recited, be, and the same is hereby agreed to and adopted by this General Assembly, and that the said amendments shall be submitted to the electors of the States for ratification or rejection at an election to be called for that purpose, in pursuance of such an act of the General Assembly as may hereafter be passed, providing for such submission, and if no time is designated by this General Assembly they shall be submitted to the people at the next general election, to be held on the second Tuesday of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six.

On January 22, the same amendments were introduced in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee; on February 18, a week after the same resolution had been indefinitely postponed in the House, the committee reported the resolution back to the Senate and recommended passage. The resolution was placed on the calendar but was not subsequently considered.

On March 5, the resolution fixing the date of general elections was read a first time in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report the same day. The report was made accordingly, with the recommendation that the resolution pass. The constitutional rule was suspended by a vote of 41-3 and the resolution passed by a vote of 44-2. On March 6, the resolution was reported to the House and was read a first time; an attempt was made to suspend the constitutional rule and read the resolution a second time, but the attempt failed by a vote of 32-57; on March 8, the resolution was read a second time and an attempt to suspend the constitutional rule and read the resolution a third time failed by a vote of 34-42. At the beginning of the special session, the resolution was reported on third reading but was not subsequently considered.

[House Journal, Forty-ninth Session, 1296.]

Senate joint resolution No. 12. A joint resolution to amend Article 2 Section 14 of the Constitution.

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That Section 14 of Article 2 of the Constitution be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows, to wit:

Section 14. All general elections shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November until otherwise provided by law.

THE FIFTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1877).

As has been shown above, the session of 1875 failed to take any definitive action on the proposed constitutional amendments submitted by the General Assembly of 1873, and it was therefore necessary to begin the process anew. In his biennial message, on January 5, 1877, Governor Hendricks repeated what he had already said in his inaugural address concerning the safe