History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 18

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104

USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 18

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

The making or amending of a constitu- tion has for years engaged popular atten- tion in Indiana to such an extent that a complete history of the circumstances at- tending the creation of the present organic

( 132 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

law will surely be highly prized by every reader of this volume, especially when mention is made that this historical re- view emanates from the pen of Prof. Lo- gan Esarey of the University of Indiana:

WHY CHANGES ARE IN ORDER.

"By the terms of the Constitution of 1816 it was provided that every twelve years a referendum vote should be taken on the advisability or necessity of calling a constitutional convention. It was the generally accepted theory then, as laid down in the writings of Jefferson, that one generation had no moral or legal right to bind by constitutional limitation a suc- ceeding generation. It is hardly probable that the framers of the constitution in- tended by this provision to prevent the citizens of Indiana from calling a constitu- tional convention any time they chose. It is more probable that it was intended by this referendum to insure each gener- ation two chances of holding a convention in spite of an opposing General Assembly. It must be kept in mind that the immedi- ate followers of Jefferson looked with favor upon the constitutional convention as one of the most effective institutions of popular Democracy.

"There appears to have been very little demand for a new convention for a long time after 1816. As one of the opponents of calling a convention, George W. Julian said in 1847: 'The people of Indiana are attached to their constitution. It is the work of their forefathers. Under it for thirty years they have enjoyed a degree of prosperity unsurpassed by any State in the Union.'

WHAT A REFERENDUM REVEALED.

"The cause for calling a constitutional convention among English-speaking peo- ple is always found to be insistent and acting through considerable periods of time. The American people generally have not lightly called into activity such revolutionary bodies. There has always been some deep-seated dissatisfaction. There were several minor defects in the working of the State and local govern- ments under the first constitution, but the chief ground of complaint was the work- ing of the General Assembly. This body had led the State into a gigantic system of internal improvements in which the State had lost more than $12,000,000. The

State became deeply involved in debt. Its bonds were hawked about the Eastern markets as low as 17 cents on the dollar. A gang of hungry office holders had been, and still were, robbing the State, and the General Assembly seemed unable or un- willing to shake them off. The annual meetings of the Assembly seemed to be an unnecessary expense and the annual elec- tions kept the people in a political turmoil. Moreover, the General Assembly was neglecting the affairs of the State and giv- ing its time and attention to hundreds of petty private affairs. A reading of the titles of the special laws of any session will give one an idea of the petty jobbery that was carried on by means of special laws.

"With all this dissatisfaction the de- mand for a convention, if we are to take the votes on the subject as evidence, was not strong. There is scarcely any mention of the vote on the subject up till 1846. A referendum had been taken in 1823, only seven years after the constitution went into effect. The vote was decisive against calling a convention. In 1828, four years later, the regular twelve-year referendum was taken with a similar result. During the following twelve years there was lit- tle agitation on the subject. The General Assembly of 1845, however, took up the subject. There was a spirited demand by a few energetic members for a convention. They succeeded in passing a law authoriz- ing a referendum on the subject at the ensuing August election. This was six years earlier than the constitution de- manded, but the friends of the movement urged with force that the people had an undeniable and inalienable right to call a constitutional convention whenever they pleased.

DEMOCRATS FAVORED CHANGE.

"The result of this referendum vote was that out of a total of 126,133 votes cast at the State election there were 33,173 for a convention and 28,843 opposed. A ma- jority of all the voters had not expressed themselves on the subject.

"When this vote was reported to the General Assembly it provoked a serious debate. It was generally agreed that the vote was not decisive and that it did not warrant the General Assembly in calling the proposed convention. Many members favored submitting the question again to

( 133 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

a popular vote at the next August election. Other members opposed all agitation on the subject as calculated to bring political disquiet and unrest. The times, it was pointed out, were especially dangerous. The State was almost bankrupt, taxes were high and times were hard. Of all times the present, it was urged, would be the worst to agitate a change in the funda- mental law.

"In spite of the efforts of a determined group of members the question was not favored by the General Assembly. It is noticeable that what might be called the professional politicians avoided taking sides in this discussion. The referendum in 1846 was not mentioned in the leading papers, and evidently was not discussed on the stump. The Governor, in report- ing the result of the vote in his annual message, made no recommendation that might be construed into a position.

"The demand for a convention, how- ever, did not cease. The Democratic party in general favored the proposition. The court practice, they said, was especially costly. Probate courts and associate judges were regarded as worse than use- less; they were meddlesome. The justices had once been the chief officers of the county, but since a board of commission- ers had taken their duties, they had be- come petty politicians, valuable only to those who wished to bribe a court or cor- rupt a jury.

POLITICAL JOCKEYING AND LOG-ROLLING.

"Many good citizens, regardless of party, looked upon the appointing power of the Governor as a source of much evil. They thought that such officers as the Au- ditor, Treasurer and other State officers should be elected by the people rather than by the General Assembly. The recent at- tempt by the Governor to barter nomina- tions to the Supreme Court for a seat in the United States Senate had given a con- crete point to the general demand to limit the appointing power of the Governors. By 1849 Governor Whitcomb, sure of his promotion to the United States Senate, came out openly for a convention in his annual message. He, no doubt, put his finger on the weakest point in the govern- ment under the old constitution when he emphasized the evil of private and local legislation. In the annual volumes of laws for the previous four or five sessions the

local laws had outnumbered the general five or six to one. In the volume of 1849 there are 343 acts published as 'local laws' and 273 as 'general laws.' Of the latter more than 200 are strictly 'local.' The time of the whole session was consumed in political jockeying and log-rolling. The annual volume of laws noted above con- tained 616 laws and 37 joint resolutions.

APPROVED BY POPULAR VOTE.

"The General Assembly of 1848 took up the question and passed an act submitting the question of calling a constitutional convention to the voters. A large major- ity of the votes cast at the ensuing August election were in favor of calling a conven- tion. The following General Assembly, by act approved January 18, 1850, ordered an election of delegates. The election was held at the same time and in all essential parts was the same as an election of mem- bers of the General Assembly. There were 150 delegates chosen from the same districts as the members of the House and Senate except in two unimportant dis- tricts.

"There was little interest in the cam- paign as far as electing delegates was con- cerned. It was hoped by many to make the elections nonpartisan, but such was not the case as a rule. It seems true, how- ever, that the Whigs took considerably less political interest in the election than the Democrats.

WHAT WHIGS FAVORED.

"A caucus of the Whig members of the General Assembly declared in favor of a constitutional convention and especially urged that the following changes be made in the constitution: All officers should be elected by popular vote; the General As- sembly should be prohibited from borrow- ing money except for urgent necessities; the county seminary funds should be transferred to the fund for common schools; the General Assembly should meet biennially; local legislation should be prohibited; the number of officers should be reduced and the establishment of new ones forbidden; a homestead ex- emption should be provided, and more en- couragement should be given to agricul- ture, mining and manufacturing.

"In the county of Marion the Whigs offered to divide the ticket equally and

( 134 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

make no contest, but the Democrats re- fused. In Jefferson county the Whigs compromised on a ticket of two Whigs and one Democrat. There were many in- stances in which fusion tickets were elected without contest, but fusion was not general. Of the fifty delegates from sena- torial districts thirty-three were Demo- crats and seventeen were Whigs; of the one hundred delegates from representa- tive districts sixty-four were Democrats and thirty-six Whigs. Of the fifty State Senators elected at the time thirty-three were Democrats and seventeen Whigs; of the Representatives sixty-two were Demo- crats and thirty-eight Whigs. It will thus be seen that the political affiliations of the General Assembly and the constitutional convention were the same.

MEN OF PROMINENCE ENLISTED.

"The delegates, 150 in number, assem- bled in the Capitol building October 7, 1850, and were organized by the Secretary of State, Charles H. Test. They were a representative body of citizens. The best- known men of the State at the time, how- ever, were not present. From our dis- tance one would say that Robert Dale Owen, Alvin P. Hovey, Thomas A. Hen- dricks, W. S. Holman, Schuyler Colfax and Horace P. Biddle were among its most distinguished members, but they were young and entirely without reputation at the time. The really distinguished men of the convention, as they gathered together for the first time, were Thomas D. Wal- pole, Abel Pepper, Daniel Kelso, James G. Reed, David Kilgore, Ross Smiley, Michael G. Bright, William M. Dunn, George W. Carr, David Wallace, Jacob Page Chap- man, James Rariden and John I. Mor- rison. Seventy-five of the members had served in the General Assembly, thirteen of whom had sat in the last session. Twenty-five more made this the stepping stone to later legislative service. Four- teen saw service in the United States Con- gress, two later became Governors, while one was an ex-Governor. There were seven well-known editors, three of whom came from Indianapolis. The great law- yers of the State were noticeably absent. A widespread prejudice against educated men existed at the time. There were three graduates of the State University and per- haps as many more were graduates of other colleges.

SOME OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES.

"The spirit of Jackson controlled the convention. Daniel Read, a delegate of Monroe and a professor of the State Uni- versity, referred to Jackson as 'a man of as remarkable sagacity as ever lived.' As a consequence of this it was attempted to strengthen Democracy among the people by bringing the Government nearer the voter. The Secretary, Treasurer and Au- ditor of State, formerly appointed by the General Assembly, were made elective. To these were added the new office of Su- perintendent of Public Instruction to be filled by popular election. Besides the above the Judges of the Supreme and Cir- cuit Courts were made elective by the peo- ple for six-year terms. The Prosecuting Attorneys and the local justices, all for- merly appointed, were made elective, the former by the voters in the judicial cir- cuit and the latter by the voters of the township. In the county the voters were made the electors of a Clerk of the Circuit Court, an Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner and Surveyor for each county. The General Assembly was given permission to establish other elective offi- cers, a power which it has used immoder- ately. Some of these officers so elected were eligible only for one term, but the majority were permitted to hold for two consecutive terms. In dealing with the suffrage elections and office holding, the general principles of Jacksonian De- mocracy then prevalent were applied. In general the convention made the most lib- eral application of the principles of man- hood suffrage and popular elections.

"It was accused in many places of play- ing politics by allowing unnaturalized citizens to vote after one year's residence. Senator Jesse Bright made this criticism.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES.

"In dealing with the negroes, both free and slave, the convention illustrated the confused political notions of the times. It re-enacted the provisions of the ordinance of 1787 with a bruskness that indicated an absolute majority of Abolitionists ; yet the provisions refusing negroes the right to vote or even to settle in the State are, in spirit, directly contradictory to the above enactment. Not only these provisions, but the speeches of the members on the ques- tion of slavery, show the utmost diversity of opinion. Not less than forty set

( 135 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

speeches on slavery, few of them dealing with any question before the convention, were made by. the members.

"In the article on the legislative depart- ment two important changes were made, both dictated by the overwhelming proof of experience. One change was the sub- stitution of biennial for annual sessions of the General Assembly. The other forbade the General Assembly making special or local laws.

"In this field the granting of divorces by the General Assembly had occasioned most hostile criticism. For years the churches had opposed this exercise of power by a legislative body. A former General As- sembly had invested the State courts with power to try divorce bills, but the Assem- bly could not divest itself of the power and the abuse continued.

POPULAR INTEREST AROUSED.

"The convention adjourned Monday morning, February 10, 1851. It had been in session eighteen weeks. No event in the State's history had received as much attention and publicity. The daily papers and many of the larger weeklies published the proceedings entire from week to week or from day to day. Innumerable articles by citizens in praise or condemnation of the work appeared in the papers. An- swers by the members in defense were equally plentiful. Editorials explained the work of the convention day by day and gave the editors' opinions of its value. It was an eighteen weeks' course in political science for the citizens of the State.

"The completed constitution was read at the last session of the convention on the morning of February 10. It appeared at once on the front pages of the newspapers, many of which repeated its publication in the three or four succeeding issues. The convention ordered 55,000 copies of the constitution-50,000 in English and 5,000 in German-printed for distribution. These appeared early in March.

"The convention had suggested that the new constitution be submitted to the peo- ple for ratification or rejection at the next August election. The General Assembly affirmed this suggestion February 4, 1851, and the Governor's proclamation followed immediately, directing the election officers to carry the order into effect.

FAVORED BY BOTH PARTIES.

"There was no organized opposition to the ratification. Both parties favored the new constitution. At the ensuing election every county gave an affirmative majority but Ohio. Starke county cast a unanimous vote for the constitution. The total vote was 113,230 for and 27,638 against ratifi- cation, a majority of 85,592 out of a total vote of 140,868. The vote for the exclu- sion of colored persons was substantially the same, being an affirmative vote of 113,- 828 out of a total vote of 135,701. Three counties, Lagrange, Randolph and Steu- ben, voted against negro exclusion. The total vote on the constitution was little short of that cast for Congressmen. The total vote in the ten Congressional dis- tricts was 148,529. That there was no partisan opposition to the constitution is shown by this vote. The Democrats car- ried the State at this election by a major- ity of only 9,469.

"The new constitution went into opera- tion November 1, 1851. The General As- sembly elected in August, 1851, met as di- rected by the old constitution. The first general election under the new constitu- tion was held in October, 1852, the old offi- cers holding until the newly elected ones were qualified and took their positions ac- cording to law. There was no jar in the operations of the State government dur- ing the change.

"One of the objections urged at first against a constitutional convention was that it would cost an enormous sum of money at a time when the State was al- most bankrupt and could ill afford to spend any money except for the most urgent need. The total expense for the eighteen- week session, as shown by the State Treas- urer's report was $85,043.82."

If it be true, as contended by John Quincy Adams, that "the will of the people is the end of all legitimate government on earth," then there can be no diversity of opinion as to the necessity of the "will of the people" being soundly formed and thoughtfully executed. When this is ex- pected to be done, the character, stability and judgment of the electorate must have greater consideration than has been be- stowed upon the same for decade upon de- cade. Lincoln, who always spoke tenderly

( 136 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

and affectionately of the "plain people," and who for many years sustained very close relations to the masses, felt con- strained to admit that "the people wob- ble," but qualified the gentle accusation by saying that "they finally wobble right." When this ensues, as Colonel Geo. B. Lock- wood interprets, the demagogue disap- pears, the fame of the opportunist withers, the reputation of the political coward dies. But what about the mischief wrought while the people wobbled ?

Burke was eternally right when he de- clared that "government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants." Again is thus pressed upon pub- lic attention the desirability and necessity of an alert electorate, the safeguard of a Republic. But, bear in mind, alertness can neither be created by legislative en- actment nor instilled into the electorate by constitutional provision. It will have to be evolved from a citizenship of tested virtue, of nobility of purpose, of patriotic aims, and of good common sense. An alert electorate will be guided by sound leadership instead of being swayed by the sophistry of glib-tongued demagogues. Reason must count for more than seduc- tive plausibility ; stern truth for more than evanescent sentimentalism.

As some viands are unpalatable to epi- cures, so stern truth is distasteful to per- sons who care to burden their minds only with things that accord with their fancy. Unmindful of such aversion, Professor William James is entitled to being ac- corded a respectful hearing while shouting these solemn truths into the public ear:

"The human individual lives usually far within his limits. He possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use. He energizes below his maximum and he behaves below his optimum. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources."

The right to vote is a privilege, not a natural prerogative; a delegated author- ity. It is conferred upon individuals by constitutional ordinance. The privilege thus accorded ought to be sacredly re- garded. It probably would be were it not so common. But, however regarded, it is the essence of governmental authority. Its debasement, debauch or decadence would presage the inevitable downfall of free institutions.

Now let us look at some of the incon- sistencies traceable to the indifference of the electorate. By an overwhelming ma- jority of the popular vote the draft of a constitution was ratified in Indiana, in the 'year 1851, which contained a clause that conferred upon aliens residing within the State one year the right to vote upon hav- ing made a declaration of intention to be- come a citizen, in conformity with the naturalization laws of the United States. About that time the Know-Nothing move- ment was making considerable headway, so that within a few years it became a con- trolling factor in Indiana politics. Then formal declaration was made by the then dominant party organization "that we are in favor of the naturalization laws of Con- gress with the five-year probation, and that the right of suffrage should accom- pany and not precede naturalization." Now, why did these people fail to assert themselves when a new constitution was being framed and adopted? There was no pressure brought upon the constitutional convention by persons of foreign birth to make voters of aliens upon a one-year's residence in the State. It is entirely within the bounds of reason and probabil- ity to say that not a half-dozen aliens set- tled down in Indiana because of this ex- traordinary grant of the elective fran- chise. Reasoning persons of foreign birth never complained of the five-year proba- tionary period established under our nat- uralization laws. On the contrary, they commended and lauded it when a pro-

( 137 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

scriptive cabal temporarily gained ascend- ancy in some commonwealths by demand- ing that the probationary period be ex- tended to twenty-one years and that Catholics be rendered ineligible to public office. Wisconsin, with its immense Ger- man, Norwegian and Scandinavian popu- lation, a few years since abolished the one- year abomination and limited the right to vote to citizens of the United States duly naturalized or to the manner born. Mich- igan did practically the same thing when it passed under a new constitution. In Indiana alone, among all the States of the central West, the mistake of sixty years ago continues as a mockery to the high prerogative of citizenship.

Perhaps an even more flagrant incon- sistency was enacted in our neighboring State of Ohio. During the sixties, several years after the Civil War, an amendment to the constitution to strike out the word "white" was submitted to popular vote and defeated by over 50,000. On the very heels of this popular rejection of negro suffrage the vote of Ohio was recorded in favor of the fifteenth amendment, estab- lishing negro suffrage in every State in the Union-including the entire mass of ignorant ex-slaves in the cotton States of the South. A more flagrant assault upon intelligent voting never was perpetrated in this or any other country. To cap the climax, just as soon as the fraudulent ratification of the fifteenth amendment was officially proclaimed, the very party that had brought about the prostitution of the ballot passed an act by Congress ab- solutely abolishing the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia by making all municipal offices appointive by a commis- sion designated by the President. This action was prompted by the fact that with the aid of disreputable whites in the city of Washington negro domination could and doubtless would have been established at the capital of the Nation. Such an in- novation would, in the eyes of the Jacobins

then in control of the legislative branch of the Government, have been entirely in order in Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida and Mississippi, but was adjudged intolerable in the District of Columbia.

No ism has ever failed to find champions and supporters, no matter how absurd it may have been, measured by any standard of reasoning or common sense.

Recall the commotion caused by the Rev. William Miller of Vermont during the early forties, when he issued his statement that he had received a divine command to announce the second coming of Christ about the year 1843-how many people de- voted all their time to preparing them- selves for the ascension to heaven in white robes, sacrificing their property, and do- ing all manner of foolish things. Cogitate over the folly of owners of orchards chop- ping down their apple trees during the Washingtonian crusade against liquor so as to guard against the product of the orchard being converted into cider. Be- hold the thousands of beguiled men and women following "Divine Healer" Schlat- ter from day to day and professing to have been freed of all manner of diseases and ailments by simply touching the raiment of that shrewd impostor. Contemplate for a moment the large number of dupes who poured their shekels into the capa- cious receptacles of the Illinois charlatan, John G. Schweinfurth, who by artful methods made himself appear as an image of Christ. Peruse the statistics emanat- ing from several of the governmental de- partments at Washington setting forth how vigilant officials in the service of Uncle Sam had in a single year saved gul- lible men and women more than one hun- dred and eighteen million dollars. Imag- ine for a moment the insecurity of life and property if for a single day or week the protecting arm of the law's vigilant and faithful sentinels were off duty. All this furnishes ample reason why there is so much "wobbling" wherever and whenever

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 18

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926 Publication date: 1917 Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1104

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104