tion 3 were lost: "Those voting in favor of a convention, shall have written or printed on their ballots, 'convention' and those voting against a convention, shall have written or printed on their ballots, 'no convention.'" The bill as passed by the House was reported to the Senate on February 15 and laid on the table on February 16. Aside from the provisions given above, the only parts of the two bills preserved are the titles which are identical.

[House Journal, Thirty-second Session, 217 and 472.]

A bill to provide for taking the sense of the qualified voters of the State on calling a convention to alter, revise, or amend the constitution of this State.

114. Free Soil Platform (August 30, 1848).

The Free Soil State Convention which assembled in Indianapolis on August 30, 1848, adopted the following resolution relative to an amendment of the Constitution.

[Indiana State Sentinel, February 14, 1849.]

Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention, the Constitution of the State of Indiana should be so amended as to secure the election of all State and county officers by the people.

115. Governor Whitcomb Recommends Calling Constitutional Convention (December 6, 1848).

[Thirty-third Session, 1848-49. Paris C. Dunning, Governor, Democrat. Senate 27 Democrats, 23 Whigs; House-60 Democrats, 40 Whigs. (Indiana State Sentinel, December 2, 1848.)]

In his message of December 6, 1848, Governor James Whitcomb' recommended the calling of a constitutional convention and enumerated those provisions of the Constitution which in his judgment were in need of amendment.

[House Journal, Thirty-third Session, 23.]

It is with unfeigned reluctance that another topic is approached; that of the growing amount of our legislation, and especially of our local and private legislation. Having given my views in regard to this subject in my first inaugural address, having again called attention to it in my annual message in December, 1845, and having repeated it at every session since, it would certainly not be again presented, were it not for a deep conviction of duty, arising from the constant, regular, and rapid growth of the evil. This will be manifest from a comparison of the num

1. Governor Whitcomb was elected to the United States Senate on December 27, 1848, and Paris C. Dunning. Lieutenant-Governor, served as Governor during the remainder of the term.

ber of large octavo pages of printed matter occupied by the general laws, as distinguished from those of a merely local or private character, passed at the last five sessions of the legislature. The number of pages of generall aws passed at thoses essions respectively, commencing with that of 1843-44 are consecutively, 122, 92, 135, 164, and 125, while the pages of a local or private character are, 180, 301, 365, 431 and 636, respectively.

Thus while the amount of our general legislation has for the last five years remained nearly stationary, that of local and private character has, within the same period, advanced more than three hundred and fifty per cent. The bills and joint resolutions, passed at the last session, were over six hundred in number, averaging more than four bills to each member, and more than thirteen for each working day of the session. Besides these were the numerous bills which were introduced, but failed of passage for want of time or other causes. This immense mass of legislation is not only calculated to lengthen the session-to increase the labor of the members-to interfere unjustly with the rights of absent individuals, and to render the law complex and uncertain, but it serves by occupying the mind and distracting the attention, to hazard the passage of dangerous measures of a general character. And if the proper examination of thirteen bills every day for six or seven weeks successively is an unreasonable task for the mind of the legislator, what shall be said of the condition of the Governor who is expected to personally examine all of them before signing; and when the far greater portion of them linger in their passage, until but a few days are left towards the close of the session within which to perform the accumulated labor? But the condition of the citizen, he for whom all this is done, is far worse. He is responsible for his presumed knowledge of the law, and to acquire that knowledge in reality he is compelled to search for it in a wilderness of enactments, and to turn over a new and larger volume every year, fraught with repeal, with change, and with burdensome additions.

For the last five years, the amount of legislation of each session has exceeded that of the previous one, at about the same rate, until the local and general laws passed at the last session have grown into an unwieldy volume of seven hundred and sixty-one pages.

What is the remedy for this growing evil?

But little reflection is required to satisfy us that it will continue to increase until a remedy is applied. In my last annual mes

sage, occasion was taken to recommend the passage of general laws, under which more appropriate tribunals should be clothed with the necessary powers to afford the relief now sought for by means of most private and local statutes. This is perhaps the only reliable remedy of which the evil is susceptible. It is not intended to deny the expediency of having a diversity of subordinate regulations, varied by the interests, habits, and wishes of different parts of the State. We already have an illustration of that diversity, exhibited in the by-laws and ordinances of different towns and cities, and in the buildings, taxes, and other matters of internal economy, of the different counties. It is only contended that the outlines, or general statutes, under which such diversity may exist, should, like that under which the counties now exercise their discretionary powers, be general and uniform. But while it is very desirable that the legislature should pass such general laws, yet the most thorough conviction is felt that the remedy can only be insured by an amendment of the Constitution, expressly prohibiting the action of the General Assembly on specified subjects of a local and private character, and making it the duty of that department to confer from time to time upon county boards, or other subordinate functionaries, the requisite powers.

The value of the remedy proposed derives confirmation from the fact that a provision of a similar kind was engrafted in the constitution of New York at the time of its amendment in 1846.

If calling a convention to amend the constitution were productive of no other result than furnishing an effectual remedy for this growing evil, it would be abundantly justified. But in addition to that, there is a growing desire that the sessions of the legislature should, as in some other States, be held not oftener than once in every two years, unless specially convened in cases of

emergency.

Such a feature, in our State Constitution, would lessen the expenses of legislation nearly one-half, and thus save the expenses of the convention itself, within the first two years; and it would afford a better opportunity to the people of knowing what the laws. are, before they are modified or repealed.

It is also to be desired that the constitution should be so amended, as to prohibit the creation of any public debt, except. under restrictions as to amount, and object. Years of prosperity may cause the severe lesson we have been taught on this subject to be forgotten, and we cannot too strongly guard against a recurrence of similar improvidence.

Akin to this, in principle and policy, would be an amendment requiring, for the passage of every bill granting money from the treasury, or public property to individuals, a majority of twothirds, in each house, of all the members elected. In that case, a claimant would still be left in a better position for success before the legislature, than before a jury of his countrymen, where a unanimous verdict is required, besides the burden of sustaining his claim by legal proof.

Such a feature is found in the Constitution of the State, already referred to, and it may be safely affirmed that a claim that will not commend itself to the approval of two-thirds of the representatives of the people should not be allowed.

But although an amendment of the Constitution, on these and some subordinate points, is regarded as highly promotive of the public good, yet I think no convention for that purpose should be called unless first authorized by a direct vote of the people.

The opinion has been expressed that by the eighth article of the present Constitution, the people have no right to vote upon this question, except in every twelfth year thereafter. But it seems now to be generally admitted that that article is directory and not permissive.

In framing the Constitution, it was doubtless borne in mind that the future condition of the State might require corresponding modifications of that instrument. But by securing to the people the privilege of voting upon the question every twelfth year, their power to exercise that right in any other year for which their representatives should make suitable provision, was not taken away. If it was taken away, it was competent, by lengthening the interval for the vote to any imaginable extent, to virtually bind posterity in all future time and prevent any amendment whatever

The present time is believed to be propitious for moving in this question. We have just left behind us the excitement of a national election. If the vote directed to be taken at the election next August, should be in favor of a convention, the duty would devolve upon the legislature at the next session (that of 1849-50), to provide by law, for the election of delegates at the following general election. The convention might be held during the following autumn, and the people would then have the opportunity of ratifying or rejecting the amendment at the August election, in 1851. Thus the whole question would be disposed of before the presidential election of 1852, which would not be the case, if the initiative should not be taken during the present session. It is

difficult to find a citizen who is not in favor of some amendments to the Constitution, and the only, or nearly the only opposition to the measure, is the fear that others would be made more than counterbalancing the advantage. But in no instance has the constitution of any other State been amended (and the instances have already been many), in which it is not almost universally regarded as an improvement, and it can hardly be supposed that Indiana would be an exception.

It is therefore respectfully recommended that provision be made at the present session for submitting this question, to the decision of the people at the general election, in August next. This question it will be borne in mind, was voted upon at the election of 1846, and the returns made to the Secretary of State showed that 32,521 votes were cast for, and 27,485 votes were cast against it, being a majority of 5,036 in favor of calling a convention. The vote was small, but if it indicated any thing, it was that the popular will favored the measure.

The next legislature, however, declined, and perhaps properly so, to provide a law for calling a convention, and mainly, it is presumed, because the vote was far from being a full one, being less than one half of that cast for officers at the same election, and because no returns whatever were made from thirteen counties. My information since that time leaves a strong conviction on my mind, that a large majority of the people are now in favor of the

measure.

116. Calling a Constitutional Convention (December 7, 1848).

Introduced in the House on December 7, 1848, by Benjamin Wolfe (Democrat); on December 12, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee (4 Democrats, 3 Whigs); the following proposed instructions were rejected: "To fix the time of taking the sense of the qualified voters of the State, as to whether they are in favor of calling a convention or not, at the general election to be held for Governor, at the time provided by the first section of the 8th article of the Constitution." On December 19, the Judiciary Committee reported the bill back to the House and recommended its passage. Meantime, on December 15, that part of the Governor's message referring to a constitutional convention was referred to a select committee of one from each congressional district (10 Democrats, 3 Whigs). The House bill was now referred to this same committee. On December 22, the select committee reported this bill back to the House and recommended its passage. On December 27, the bill was read a third time and passed. On December 30, the bill was reported to the Senate and was referred to a committee which had a Senate bill under consideration. Only the title of this bill has been preserved.