bill and amendment, and recommend concurrence in the proposed amendment.

154. State Boundaries (December 16, 1851).

During the 36th session of 1851, the following resolution, relative to State boundaries, was presented in the Senate on December 16, but there was apparently no report.

[Senate Journal, Thirty-sixth Session, 110.]

Resolved, That so much of the existing laws as relate to the boundaries of this State and of the several counties therein, be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and that said committee be instructed to inquire whether any changes are necessary in the several acts relating thereto, to make the same conform to the present Constitution, and to report by bill or otherwise.

155. Revision and Amendment of Acts; Duration of the General Assembly; and Emergency Clauses (1853).

During the 37th session of 1853, three questions relative to the construction of the Constitution arose and were the subjects of legislative consideration. All three were considered in the House. On January 12, 1853, a resolution was adopted, "That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into and report upon the proper construction to be given to Section 21, Article 4, of the Constitution of this State, concerning the revision and amendment of acts, whether both the old and the new act or the revised act alone shall be set out." The second question involved the duration of a regular session of the General Assembly. The first session of the General Assembly under the present Constitution, was unlimited as to its duration. At the second session of 1853, very little legislation was necessary, and the session closed before the expiration of the 61 days, Sundays included. However, in order to obtain a solution to this question, on January 27, a resolution was adopted, "That the Committee on the Judiciary be requested to report to this House the intent and meaning of that portion of Section 29, Article 4, of the Constitution of this State, relative to the extension of the term of the General Assembly." On February 7, it was resolved, "that so much of Section 29 of Article 4, of the Constitution of this State as reads as follows to-wit: 'No session of the General Assembly, except the first under this Constitution, shall extend beyond the term of sixty-one days,' is construed by this House to mean sixty-one consecutive days." On the following day, February 8, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, in which all members unanimously concurred, that a session consistep of 61 consecutive days, Sundays included, and not 61 days of actual sitting, and in this opinion the House concurred.

[House Journal, Thirty-seventh Session, 449.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, who were instructed by a resolution of the House to report their opinion of the intent and meaning of that portion of Section 29, Article 4, of the Constitution of this State in relation to the extension of the term of the General Assembly, have had the subject under consideration, and have directed me to make the following report: The language of that portion of the Constitution referred to, is as follows: "No session of the General Assembly except the first under this Constitution shall extend beyond the term of sixtyone days, nor any special session beyond the term of forty days."

The committee understand the question presented by the resolution to be as to whether or not Sundays and other days when the General Assembly may not actually sit, may be computed as part of the term of sixty-one days.

They are of the opinion that the word "session," as used in this section of the Constitution, embraces all the time intervening between the first day of meeting and the final adjournment of the legislature-whether either or both branches may have been actually sitting during all of that period or not, and that the time covered by temporary adjournment is to be considered as part of the period of session.

The doctrine seems to have been established as applicable to the British Parliament. "The session of Parliament continues until it be prorogued, and breaks not off by adjournment." "An adjournment is no more than the continuance of the session from one day to another;" "an adjournment is by each house, and the session continues notwithstanding such adjournment." Attaching this meaning to the word "session," it seems clear that the Constitution in limiting the session to the term of sixty-one days, means sixty-one consecutive days and not sixty-one days of actual sitting. It is also a general principle that when a given number of days are prescribed by law for the performance of any act or the discharge of any duty, Sundays, unless specially excepted, are computed; this is familiar in construction of all statutes prescribing terms, as for the service and return of writs, taking appeals and the like. Sundays are considered as part of the terms of the English courts of law. To apply a different rule of construction in the present case, might defeat the object of this provision. of the Constitution. The same reason that would exclude Sundays from the computation, would exclude other days when either

branch should not be in actual session. Either house has power under the Constitution to adjourn for three days, without the consent of the other, if then, one branch should adjourn for three days, while the other remained in session, it would happen that when the branch not so adjourning had set sixty-one days, the other would have set but fifty-eight days, and as the General Assembly would not have been in session sixty-one days, until each branch composing it had been that long in session, it might happen that by frequent adjournments of one branch, the session would be greatly prolonged. Your committee therefore submit it as their opinion that the present session of the General Assembly is limited to sixty-one consecutive days from the 6th day of January, and consequently, that it cannot extend beyond the 7th day of March.

On February 11, a resolution was adopted, "that the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire, whether when an enactment contains an emergency clause, it is necessary to make mention of the same in the title thereof."

Under the influence of the Know Nothing movement, considerable sentiment had manifested itself against the suffrage provisions granting liberal political rights to aliens. Other constitutional amendments desired were designed to change the method of amending acts, to alter the provision relative to the time when acts shall take effect, to remove the limitations on legislative sessions, to remove the restrictions on the holding of more than one office, to restore local legislation in a modified form and to abolish the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

THE THIRTY-EIGHTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1855)

The thirty-eighth General Assembly of 1855 consisted of 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans or Fusionists, in the Senate, and 43 Democrats and 57 Republicans, in the House. This was the first opportunity the Republicans had had to officially express their disapproval of certain provisions of the Constitution and the opportunity was not neglected.

156. Suffrage Qualifications; Method of Amending Acts; Time When Acts Shall Take Effect; Removal of Limitations on Legislative Sessions; Holding More Than One Office; Annual Sessions of the General Assembly; Restoration of Local Legislation; and Common Schools (January 8, 1855).

The most important constitutional measure of the 38th session was introduced by Mr. David Kilgore, the Republican Speaker of the House, on January 8, 1855. On January 9, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The amendments proposed in this bill were designed to prevent unnaturalized aliens from voting, to change the existing method of amending

acts, to alter the provision relative to the time when acts shall take effect, and to remove the limitation on legislative sessions.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 56.]

House Bill No. 4. A bill to amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana by altering the second section of Article 2, and by striking out the 21st section of Article 4, and to alter the 28th section of Article 4, and by striking out the latter clause of Section 29, Article 4.

On February 14, the committee reported "that a joint resolution is the proper form for such amendments" and they therefore reported a joint resolution as a substitute for the bill and recommended its passage. A motion to indefinitely postpone the resolution was rejected by a vote of 33-52. On February 17, the resolution was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee for reconsideration. The provisions of this resolution were: to prohibit foreigners from voting who had not been naturalized under the laws of Congress; to allow officers in the militia, not receiving an annual salary, and deputy postmasters whose pay did not exceed $90 per annum, to hold another office; to provide annual sessions of the General Assembly, unrestricted as to length; in amending acts, to require that the section or act as amended, only, be set forth; to provide that laws need not necessarily be uniform in their operation throughout the State.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 475.]

House joint resolution No. 11. A joint resolution in relation to amending the Constitution of the State.

Apparently, on recommendation of the committee, House joint resolution No. 11, was divided into eight separate parts, each having a distinct subject matter and each numbered as a separate resolution, as follows: House joint resolution No. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. The first of these resolutions was considered on March 2. It was designed to change the residential and other qualifications of foreign voters, and passed the House by a vote of 55-29. The passage of this resolution was reported to the Senate but apparently no action was taken by that body.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 781.]

Joint resolution No. 15. A joint resolution to amend the second section of the second article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

The second of these resolutions was then taken up for consideration. A motion was made to amend this resolution by striking out the thirteenth article of the Constitution, which provided for the colonization of the negroes. The resolution and the motion not germane to the question were both laid on the table by a vote of 61-19. Apparently, this proposed amendment was intended to permit militia officers, not receiving an annual salary, and deputy postmasters whose annual salary did not exceed $90, to hold another office.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 781.]

Joint resolution No. 16. A joint resolution to amend the ninth section of the second article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

The third resolution, apparently designed to permit annual sessions of

the General Assembly, unlimited as to length, was rejected by a vote of 38-44.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 783.]

Joint resolution No. 17. A joint resolution to amend the ninth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

The fourth resolution, which proposed to change the method of amending acts, was lost for want of a constitutional majority, the vote being 44-30.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 784.]

Joint resolution No. 18. A joint resolution to amend the twenty-first section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

Because of lack of time the remaining resolutions were laid on the table. By inference from former discussions, it is tolerably safe to conclude that the changes proposed by these resolutions, in order, were as follows: restoring a modified form of local legislation by providing that laws need not be of uniform operation throughout the State; changing the time when acts take effect; removing the limitation on legislative sessions; and effecting a change in the common school system.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 784.]

Joint resolution No. 19. A joint resolution to amend the twenty-third section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Joint resolution No. 20. A joint resolution to amend the twenty-eighth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Joint resolution No. 21. A joint resolution to amend the twenty-ninth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Joint resolution No. 22. A joint resolution to amend the first section of the eighth article of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

157. Superintendent of Public Instruction (January 16, 1855).

On January 16, 1855, Mr. David J. Davis, a Democrat, introduced a bill in the House to repeal Section 8 of Article 8 of the Constitution, which provided for the election of a State Superintendent of Public Instruction. On January 17 the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee; on January 22, the committee reported the bill back to the House and recommended that it be indefinitely postponed, and the House concurred in this report.

[House Journal, Thirty-eighth Session, 131.]

Bill No. 53. A bill to repeal Section 8 of the eighth article of the Constitution of Indiana, relative to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

158. Reducing the Number of Senators and Representatives; Compensation (January 23, 1855).

Introduced in the House on January 23, by Mr. Horatio C. Newcomb, a Republican.