laws of the State published in the German language. Now I am opposed to having the laws of the State published in any other language than our own, for if we encourage this cultivation of another language, we never can become an homogenous people. What is the course adopted in other countries? Do we find the laws of France published in English for the benefit of the crowds of Englishmen who flock to that country, or the laws of England published in French for the benefit of the Frenchmen in England?. No, sir; nothing of the kind; and to do so in our country is only to create, and foster, and sustain those national prejudices which foreigners always bring with them to this country. This country, sir, is regarded as the asylum of the oppressed. So I would ever wish it to be; and when we open the hand { of benevolence, and greet the foreigner with a hearty welcome, I think he can do little less than endeavor to learn our language. Sir, we do not want to create a sort of imperium in imperio, by having a nation of Germans or of Frenchmen within the United States; and I hope that no measure will ever emanate from any legislative body to print the laws in any other language than our own. well remarked by a gentleman upon this floor, that the law should be brought within the knowledge of every citizen, in order to render just the punishment of disobedience. In that remark I most cordially concur; and I trust the proviso will not be stricken out. I hope that the section will not only be adopted as it now stands, but that the Legislature will put the same construction upon the word "may" as has heretofore been placed upon it in such connection. The question was then taken on the motion to re-consider, and there were yeas 35, nays 88 -as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Badger, Bourne, Bracken, Bright, Brookbank, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Conduit, Cookerly, Duzan, Foster, Garvin, Gootee, Gregg, Haddon, Helmer, Hitt, Kendall of White, Kinley, Logan, McLean, Morgan, Mowrer, Murray, Niles, Ritchey, Schoonover, Shannon, Snook, Steele, Stevenson, Thomas, Watts, and Mr. President -35. NAYS. Messrs. Alexander, Anthony Bar{bour, Bascom, Beach, Beard, Beeson, Berry, Blythe, Borden, Bowers, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Chandler, Chenowith, Colfax, Crawford, Crumbacker, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dobson, Dunn of Jefferson, Dunn of Perry, &c., Edmonston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Frisbie, Gibson, Gor I contend that it shows a want of patriotism thus to attempt to disfranchise our own language, either in favor of French, or Dutch, or any other. This is all I have to say. I hope the vote will be re-considered, and the amend-don, Graham of Warrick, Hall, Hamilton, ment rejected; for I should almost despise myself if such a disgraceful provision ever emanated from this Convention. Mr. HOLMAN. The chief argument which I have heard in favor of the section offered by the gentleman from Marion, is that we should abandon the use of technical terms in our laws, because they are not generally understood by { the masses of the people. Now I think the same argument operates with equal, if not with greater force, in regard to the proviso of the gentleman from Crawford. There are in the State of Indiana perhaps ten thousand German voters. There are in the State, entire townships in which none but Germans reside. These townships have all their local business to transact as well as those townships peopled by our native born citizens, and as all laws relating to the management of township business are to be general, it is a matter of importance to these Germans to know what these laws are. In my own county there are one or two townships that are almost entirely filled with a German population; and it is well known that the German emigrant coming to the United States late in life, seldom becomes acquainted with our language. If the object is to make the people familiar with the laws of the country, we should adopt this proviso for the benefit of those who come among us from other countries, and from whom we require the same obedience that we require from our own people. It was Harbolt, Helm, Hendricks, Holman, Hovey, Huff, Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kilgore, Lockhart, Maguire, March, Mather, McClelland, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morrison of Marion, Nave, Newman, Nofsinger, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Pettit, Prather, Rariden, Read of Clark, Ristine, Robinson, Sherrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Tague, Tannehill, Taylor, Thornton, Trimbly, Wallace, Walpole, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, Yocum, and Ženor-88. So the motion to re-consider the vote on the proviso did not prevail. Mr. WATTS. I move to amend the proviso by inserting the following in the proper place: "And the Constitution, and the decisions of the Supreme Court." I am in hopes, if it is determined to publish the laws in the German and French languages, that my amendment will be adopted, for the Constitution and the Supreme Court are the paramount law of the land. By giving these people the Statutes only, we would only be likely to lead them astray. It would be like glving them the law by piecemeal. I am for going the whole figure. Mr. DUNN of Perry moved to lay the amendment on the table. The motion was agreed to on a divisionthere being ayes 75, noes 44 Mr. MORRISON of Marion moved the previous question, which was sustained. Mr. KELSO. If it is not too late, I respectfully ask that we may have the yeas and nays on the question of engrossing the section for a third reading. The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted as follows: AYES-Messrs. Alexander, Anthony, Badger, Balingall, Bascom, Beach, Beard, Beeson, Berry, Bowers, Bracken, Bright, Brookbank, Bryan Chandler, Chapman, Chenowith, Coats, Cel, Conduit, Cookerly, Crawford, Crumbacker, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, &c., Duran, Edmonston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Pristie, Garvin, Gordon, Graham of Warrick, Gregg, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Harbolt, Hardn, Helm, Hendricks, Hitt, Holman, Huff, Johnson, Jones, Kendall of Wabash, Kinley, Lockhart, Maguire, March, Mather, May, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morgan, Merrison of Marion, Mowrer, Murray, Nave, Newman, Nofsinger, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Pettit, Rariden, Read of Clark, Ristine, Ritchey, Shannon, Sherrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Taylor, Thomas, Thornton, Trimbly, Wallace, Walpole, Watts, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, Yocum, and Zenor-104. NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Blythe, Bourne, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Dunn of Jefferson, Foster, Gibson, Gootee, Helmer, Hovey, Kelso, Kendall of White, Kilgore, Logan, Niles, Read of Monroe, Robinson, Schoonover, and Mr. President-19. Mr. BORDEN. I wish to have my vote recorded in favor of the section. The PRESIDENT. Was the gentleman from Allen within the bar when his name was called! Mr. BORDEN. No, I was conversing with a gentleman outside the bar. SATURDAY, DEC. 14, 1850. The Convention met pursuant to adjourn ment. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Crumbacker, a Delegate from the county of Lake. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a communication from the Governor, enclosing a letter from a joint committee of the Legislature of Kentucky appointed to forward to this body a copy of certain resolutions of the Kentucky Legislature in reference to the resolutions adopted by the Convention in relation to the death of Col. Richard M. Johnson, expressive of their high appreciation of the course pursued by this body on that melancholy occasion. The coinmunication and resolutions were read, and On motion by Mr. THORNTON, they were ordered to be spread upon the Journal and published with the debates. RESOLUTIONS. The PRESIDENT. This being Saturday resolutions are in order. The Convention will first take up the resolations that have been laid over. The first resolution is that offered by the gentleman from Lake, (Mr. Crumbacker.) The Chair is uncertain whether this resolution has been acted upon or not. Mr. CRUMBACKER. It has not been acted upon. I am willing to leave it to the action of the Convention without any remarks, for I do not wish to consume time, but I would like to have the yeas and nays upon it. The resolution was read. It directs that the first section of the first article of the present Constitution, which declares that all men are born free and equal, &c., be inserted in the new Constitution. Mr. PETTIT. My recollection is, that that resolution was laid upon the table. A VOICE. "Certainly it was." Mr. CRUMBACKER. The gentleman from Tippecanoe, I think, is mistaken. The resolu The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is too tioh being imperative it was laid over until the late. His vote cannot be recorded. Mr. STEVENSON. I offer the following as an additional section: "The Legislature may confer upon the boards doing county business in the several counties in the State, such powers of a local, legislative, and administrative character, as they shall from time to time préscribe." Mr. NILES. I would suggest the propriety of this section being referred to the committee on local and special legislation, and move that it be so referred. The motion to refer was agreed to. following Saturday, and on that day the resolutions of the gentleman from Wayne were brought up, and occupied the whole day, as will be recollected. Mr. PETTIT. When the first section of the Constitution was up for consideration, the corresponding section in the present Constitution was proposed to be inserted, and it was, I believe, laid upon the table. I do not design to discuss this question again; it has been fully discussed already. I have, on a former occasion, endeavored to point out that the section in the old Constitution is not true in fact, if true in theory. I do not believe it is true in theory. Men are not created equal. I said, 1 probably, on that occasion, that men were not born or created equal. Perhaps I should have employed the word " persons," to make myself more clearly understood. Persons are not created equal. The declaration in that section is not true, and I protest against putting anything in the Constitution that is not true in fact as well as in theory. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table. Mr. CRUMBACKER demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. DOBSON. I wish merely to make a short explanation. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would remark Mr. DOBSON. I know, sir, that debate is not in order, but this subject has all been acted upon already Mr. BORDEN (interposing). Is it in order to debate the question? If so, I wish to take part in it. The PRESIDENT. It is not in order. The yeas and nays were then taken on the motion to lay the resolution on the table, with the following result-yeas 81, nays 35-as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Badger, Barbour, Bascom, Berry, Blythe, Bourne, Bowers, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Chandler, Chapman, Chenowith, Coats, Cookerly, Crawford, Davis of Parke, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Ed-} monston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Garvin, Gibson, Gootee, Graham of Warrick, Haddon, Hall, Harbolt, Hardin, Helm, Helmer, Hendricks, Holman, Huff, Johnson, Kelso, Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of White, Lockhart, Logan, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morrison, Marion, Nave, Nofsinger, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Pettit, Prather, Read of Clark, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Schoonover, Shannon, Sherrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Tague, Tannehill, Thomas, Trimbly, Wiley, Wolfe, Yocum, Zenor, and Mr. President-81. tution providing that embezzlement of public funds by any public officer shall be deemed a felony, and shall subject the offender to such punishment in the penitentiary as the General Assembly may provide, was taken up for consideration. The resolution having been read by the Secretary, The question was taken upon its adoption, and decided in the affirmative. A resolution heretofore offered by Mr. Hendricks, instructing the committee on miscellaneous provisions to report a section to be inserted in the new Constitution providing that all county officers shall continue to hold their respective offices until the expiration of their several terms, provided that no officer shall continue in office after the adoption of the new Constitution for a longer time than a term of the office under the same, was taken up for consideration. The queetion being on the adoption of the resolution, the yeas and nays were demanded, and they were ordered. Mr. WALPOLE moved to amend, by striking out all after the word "resolved," and inserting the following: "That the present incumbents shall perform the duties of their respective offices until superseded under the authortty of the new Constitution." Mr. EDMONSTON moved that the amendment be laid upon the table. Mr. WALPOLE demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. GIBSON (addressing the Chair). Is it in order to amend the motion, by including the original resolution? The PRESIDENT. The Chair is inclined to think that it is not in order to amend the motion. The yeas and nays were then taken, and resulted-yeas 91, nays 31-as follows. YEAS. Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Badger, Ballingall, Bascom, Beach, Beard, BeeNAYS.-Messrs. Anthony, Ballingall, Beach son, Berry, Blythe, Borden, Bourne, Bowers, Beard, Beeson, Borden, Clark of Hamilton, Brookbank, Brayant, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe, Colfax, Conduit, Crum-Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, backer, Davis of Madison, Dunn of Jefferson, Frisbie, Gregg, Hamilton, Hitt, Kilgore, Kinley, Maguire, March, Mather, May, McClelland, Morgan, Mowrer, Newman, Rariden, Smith of Ripley, Thornton, Wallace, Walpole, Watts, Work, and Wunderlich-35. Colfax, Conduit, Cookerly Crawford, Crumbacker, Dunn of Jefferson, Duzan, Edmonston, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Frisbie, Garvin, Gootee, Gregg, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Helmer, Hendricks, Hitt, Hovey, Huff, Kelso, Kendall of Wabash, Kilgore, Kinley, Lockhart, LoA resolution heretofore offered, requiring the gan, Maguire, March, Mather, May, McClelcommittee on public institutions to report an land, McLean, Miller of Clinton, Miller of Fularticle to be inserted in the Constitution direct-ton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Morgan, Morriing the Legislature to provide for the deaf and dumb, the blind and insane, was then taken up. The question was taken upon its adoption, and decided in the affirmative. A resolution heretofore offered by Mr. Chapman, instructing the committee on criminal law to report a section to be inserted in the Consti son of Marion, Newman, Niles, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Pettit, Prather, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Shannon, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Spann, Steele, Tague, Tannehill, Taylor, Todd, Trimbly, Watts, Wiley, Wolfe, Wunderlich, Yocum, and Zenor-91. NAYS.-Messrs. Barbour, Bracken, Butler, Carr, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, &c., Gibson, Graham of Warrick, Harbolt, Holman, Johnson, Mooney, Moore, Mowrer, Nave, Nofsinger, Rariden, Read of Clark, Schoonover, Sherrod, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Stevenson, Taylor, Thornton, Wallace, Walpole, Work, and Mr. President-31. So the amendment was laid on the table. The question being on the adoption of the resolution. Senators and Representatives, under the new Mr. EDMONSTON. I cannot see for my life, the force of the argument of the gentleman from Rush. The gentleman says that we are about to legislate men into office for an indefinite period. Now I appeal to gentlemen on this floor, if the people have not put these officers into office with the expectation that they would continue to serve during the period for which they were elected-during the term of their respective offices as prescribed in the old Constitution. Mr. BRACKEN. If the gentleman will permit me to set him right, the remark I made was this: That one of the chief motives for calling this Convention was to get rid of these interminable office holders. But Mr. BRACKEN. It would seem, Mr. President, to be in vain, after the overwhelming vote that has just been given to lay the amendment of my friend from Hancock on the table, to undertake to argue against the evident deter-ter. miration of the Convention. Yet I think it will be well enough before we proceed with sach haste, that we should pause and consider what it is that we are doing. This resolution } is an imperative resolution, requiring the committee to report specifically the provision contained in the resolution. I for one, sir, believe that we came up here to make a Constitution, to be submitted to the free electors of Indiana, for their approval or rejection. But the people never expected that we were coming up here to create officers for them. No one ever dreamed when this Convention was called, that we were going to keep those old hunkers in office, forever. But as soon as we come up here, we set to work, not only to make a Constitution, but to create officers under it. It is certainly a most extraordinary course for this Convention to pursue. I, for one, believe that offices are made for the benefit of the people, and not for the benefit of the officers. Sir, it is a perfec Mr. EDMONSTON. Precisely so. cutrage upon the community, to stand up here what does this amendment propose? It propoand say that we will designate the officers who ses that no man who now holds an office under shall serve under the Constitution that we are the present Constitution, shall serve for a longer making; for it amounts to that. It is the same period than the term of office provided by this as if you were to say that A. B. & C. shall be Constitution. Now I submit to gentlemen the men who shall fill the offices. You make it whether, if the people had anticipated that we an imperative matter. I submit to this body were coming up here to legislate all officers that we were never sent here for such a purpose under the present Constitution, out of office, to as this. I am not for legislating people into turn out all those whom the people had themoffice. We were never sent here for any such selves entrusted with office-I submit to genpurpose, and if you adopt a proposition like thistlemen whether, if the people had supposed you will place yourselves in a false position, this, this Convention would have been called or you will force the people, when they come to not? I think it would not. And I submit, also vote upon the question of the adoption or rejec- that if they adopt, with a provision, it may tion of the Constitution, either to vote for its have the effect of raising up a formidable opporejection, or else to give their votes for retain-sition to the Constitution, and may occasion its ing in office these old hunkers. Why, sir, one of the chief objects of calling this Convention was to get rid of the old office holders, those who hold their offices in perpetuity. You have adopted a provision declaring that hereafter offices shall be held, some for four years, and some for a shorter period, and now you propose to let those who already fill the offices, continue to hold them, you make them by your vote, officers under the new Constitution. Sir, you might as well declare who shall be the first rejection. You will, at all events, have all these office holders and those who elected them to office, bringing all the influence that they can exert to bear against the Constitution, and the influence they can bring to bear will not be inconsiderable. Having canvassed their districts for the office they hold, and having been elected for a certain period of time, if they should now be summorily ejected from office, and thrown back upon the people for their suffrages again, they will, undoubtedly, raise up a powerful faction against you, and will probably in the people, and the moment you declare in be able to defeat the adoption of your Constitu- your written Constitution that a certain class tion by the people. And in another view it is of persons shall hold office, that moment you' not right. The freemen of the various coun- deny to the people the right of sovereignty. ties having chosen men to fill certain offices for You might as well declare in the new Constia definite period of time; wha tright have we totution that the present Governor shall continue' say to those men they shall not serve? What right have you to throw them back to canvass the district again, at a heavy expense, and at much cost and trouble to the people? Would it be right and proper? I think it would not, and I think we should not do it. If we adopt this resolution, we say that these men shall serve during the term for which they were elected, or, until the expiration of the term prescribed by the new Constitution. No matter which Constitution they serve under, the old or the new. Their obligation to serve the people faithfully is the same. The gentleman from Rush asks how officers under the old Constitution can be officers under the new. Will the fact of the adoption of a new Constitution change the obligation of the oath they have taken under the old, so far as these officers are concerned? Why the idea is preposterous in the extreme: That a man is absolved by the adoption of the new Constitution, from the obligation which he incurred when appointed to office under the old Constitution, to serve the people faithfully. to exercise the functions of his office for six years, as to declare that the clerk of a county shall be an officer under the new Constitution for a certain period of time. The principle is the same. You deny the sovereign power of the people, and say that you will act for them until a given period. But what further does the gentleman's amendment propose? One of the articles in the new Constitution provides that there shall be biennial elections. You do not then make the same provision in regard to elections that is contained in the old Constitution, and the gentleman's proposition is, that sheriffs and other officers shall continue to hold their offices under the new Constitution not exceeding a term of office under the same. Suppose that before the adoption of your Constitution, a sheriff should be elected and should serve his year nearly out; then under this provision of the gentleman from Shelby, if adopted, he would continue in office and serve a year longer, without a re-election; and at the expiration of the several twelve months-there being only biennial elections and consequently no Mr. WALPOLE. The sentiments of gen- election until the second year-the office would tlemen seem to be somewhat changed within a necessarily become vacant, or if a provision be few days. There was not long ago, evidently inserted, as will probably be the case, that all a majority of this body in favor of removing the incumbents of office shall continue to hold their old incumbents from office. In my opinion the respective offices until their successors are electgentleman from Rush has assumed the corrected and qualified, you then make this individual ground, that when you adopt this provision you hold the office of sheriff for three years, whereare legislating men into office. How do they get as the people elected him but for one; and there office? They derive it from the existing Con- are a hundred cases in which the same thing stitution. When the old Constitution passes may happen. I take this ground, that the callaway, those who were constituted officers undering of this Convention to remodel the Constituit, cease to be officers, they pass away along tion of Indiana is a revolution in our governwith it. When the Constitution under which ment, that the old Constitution is passing away, they received office ceases to exist, their offices and that we are sent here to do as if there were of course, also cease. This provision if adopted no existing Constitution for the State at all; into the new Constitution, will confer powers and that we were commencing to form a govupon them which were heretofore confered by ernment ab initio. Suppose there was no Conthe old. When an individual has a right constitution, and you was about to establish a parferred upon him under the provisions of the amount law for the State, would you think of law, he can enjoy that right only so long as the putting in a provision that men who derive office law which confers it continues in existence; from some former authority which had existed but the moment the law is repealed, or other- but which had passed away, should fill the offices wise ceases to exist, his right ceases. So it is created by your organic law? Then why should with the present incumbents of offices, derived you declare that those men shall continue in from the present Constitution. The moment that office, the authority which conferred power upon Constitution ceases to be the supreme law of them having been abrogated? It is urged by the land all the rights they enjoy as such officers, the gentleman from Dubois that if you adopt a all the emoluments of their offices passes away provision sweeping away the present incumwith it. What does the gentleman from Dubois bents you will call to the ballot box an irresist propose? He proposes that, although the Con-able power against your Constitution. stitution shall have passed away, yet those who derived their offices from it shall continue in office. To that I object, because it is anti-republican. We declare that all power resides And this, sir, is an argument addressed to an intelligent body of men engaged in the formation of an organic law! That there is an out-door pressure which must be guarded against and |