ceremony it was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 18-10.2 Obviously, in this issue, the question turned on the expediency, political and otherwise, of removing the seat of Government from Corydon prior to 1825; the necessity of amending the Constitution within two years from the date of its adoption, which was implied in and essential to the successful achievement of this object, was apparently of subsidiary importance; while the employment of the referendum to ascertain the popular sentiment on this question, while not an unknown political device, seems to have challenged least attention.63 No subsequent attempt was made to modify or delete this provision of the Constitution. The General Assembly had evidently determined to abide the nine year waiting period, and thereafter to effect a removal of the capital in accordance with the provision of the Constitution. At all events, the question fell completely into abeyance until January 11, 1820, when an art was passed appointing ten commissioners to select and locate a site for the permanent seat of Government of the State of Indiana. '' This commission selected a site and reported their findings to the 5th General Assembly. Thereupon, an act was adopted on January 6, 1821, by the terms of which the site selected by these commissioners was established as a permanent seat of Government of the State of Indiana," and provision was made for the appointment of three commissioners to lay out a town. Finally, by an act of January 20, 1824. Indianapolis in Marion county was "adopted and established, as the permanent seat of Government of this State, upon, from and after the second Monday in January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five. ̈ ́ Method of Voting-Ballot vs. Viva Voce.-Section 2 of Article VI. of the Constitution provided that "All elections shall be by ballot: Provided. That the General Assembly may, if they deem 62. The geographical distribution of the vote on this resolution as dos expertally signideant Harrison county voted soudly in opponituce to the rescLIDOG Frazala and Knox divided Clark Jeff-rwon. Jarkson and Washington voted in favor and all the other epanties with opposed 83. House Journal 2d semioc 66 94. 115 153 and 143 The xa: PACELTICE itself is not in existence and its provisions can only be mucjersized from the maraner of the instructions wit mitted to the committee. A proposed rearstice of sondemnata introduced in the Home at the 4th session on December 20 1501 SOCne of the mot erendum vote on the method of voting, then moder roomderation as one of the correct and immutatie priamples of repubUZENEL" Ese 403 sesica " 306. tions of the State were palpably disgruntled; and the adoption of the provision was alleged to be an unwarranted usurpation of power.59 Moreover, the location of the capital on the extreme southern periphery of the new commonwealth had decided geographical disadvantages, while the spread of population northward constantly accentuated the prevalent discontent. It was inevitable, therefore, that a legislative contest would arise over this irrepressible and perplexing question and it is not surprising that the first attempt to secure a modification of the Constitution was inspired by a determination to modify or repeal this section. This contest, which was imminent from the date when the provisions of the Constitution had become generally known, was precipitated in 1817, at the second annual session of the General Assembly. It will be recalled that the Constitution had not been submitted to the people for ratification; hence the sentiments of the electorate on the question of the location of the seat of Government, as well as on the other provisions of the Constitution, were problematical and conjectural. It was now determined to employ the referendum; to submit the proposition to a direct vote of the people; to obtain an undoubted plebiscite on an isolated question; and, apparently, if sanctioned by popular approbation, to delete or modify this objectionable constitutional provision, and thus abridge the period which must elapse before moving the capital northward to a more convenient and strategic location. Accordingly, on December 19, the House adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee "to take into consideration the propriety of taking the sense of the people of this State, on that part of the Constitution which fixes the seat of Government at Corydon until the year 1825, with leave to report by bill or otherwise. "'60 The speaker immediately appointed a committee of 9 representatives.61 This committee, impressed with the propriety of submitting the question to the people, returned a favorable report and a joint resolution on December 26. Sentiment in the House crystallized slowly. On January 9, an attempt to indefinitely postpone the measure was lost by a vote of 7 to 21, and it was immediately thereafter considered at length in the Committee of the Whole. Three days later, on January 12, the consideration of the measure was resumed and with little apparent 59. See page xxii. 60. 1160 The resolution was presented by Mr. Beggs of Clark county. 61. This committee consisted of three representatives from Clark county, and one each from Jefferson, Washington, Harrison, Jackson, Knox and Franklin. ceremony it was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 18-10.62 Obviously, in this issue, the question turned on the expediency, political and otherwise, of removing the seat of Government from Corydon prior to 1825; the necessity of amending the Constitution within two years from the date of its adoption, which was implied in and essential to the successful achievement of this object, was apparently of subsidiary importance; while the employment of the referendum to ascertain the popular sentiment on this question, while not an unknown political device, seems to have challenged least attention.63 No subsequent attempt was made to modify or delete this provision of the Constitution. The General Assembly had evidently determined to abide the nine year waiting period, and thereafter to effect a removal of the capital in accordance with the provision of the Constitution. At all events, the question fell completely into abeyance until January 11, 1820, when an act was passed appointing ten commissioners to select and locate a site for the permanent seat of Government of the State of Indiana.''64 This commission selected a site and reported their findings to the 5th General Assembly. Thereupon, an act was adopted on January 6, 1821, by the terms of which the site selected by these commissioners was "established as a permanent seat of Government of the State of Indiana," and provision was made for the appointment of three commissioners to lay out a town.65 Finally, by an act of January 20, 1824, Indianapolis in Marion county was "adopted and established, as the permanent seat of Government of this State, upon, from and after the second Monday in January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five. ''66 Method of Voting-Ballot vs. Viva Voce.-Section 2 of Article VI, of the Constitution provided that "All elections shall be by ballot: Provided, That the General Assembly may, if they deem 62. The geographical distribution of the vote on this resolution is not especially significant; Harrison county voted solidly in opposition to the resolution; Franklin and Knox divided; Clark, Jefferson, Jackson and Washington voted in favor; and all the other counties were opposed. 63. House Journal, 2d Session, 66, 94, 115, 153 and 163. The joint resolution itself is not in existence and its provisions can only be conjectured from the character of the instructions submitted to the committee. A proposed resolution of condemnation introduced in the House at the 6th Session, on December 27, 1821, spoke of the referendum vote on the method of voting, then under consideration, as one of the "clear correct and immutable principles of republicanism." House Journal, 6th Session, 306. 64. Laws, 4th Session, 18. 65. Laws, 5th Session, 44. 66. Laws, 8th Session, 370. tions of the State were palpably disgruntled; and the adoption of the provision was alleged to be an unwarranted usurpation of power.59 Moreover, the location of the capital on the extreme southern periphery of the new commonwealth had decided geographical disadvantages, while the spread of population northward constantly accentuated the prevalent discontent. It was inevitable, therefore, that a legislative contest would arise over this irrepressible and perplexing question and it is not surprising that the first attempt to secure a modification of the Constitution was inspired by a determination to modify or repeal this section. This contest, which was imminent from the date when the provisions of the Constitution had become generally known, was precipitated in 1817, at the second annual session of the General Assembly. It will be recalled that the Constitution had not been submitted to the people for ratification; hence the sentiments of the electorate on the question of the location of the seat of Government, as well as on the other provisions of the Constitution, were problematical and conjectural. It was now determined to employ the referendum; to submit the proposition to a direct vote of the people; to obtain an undoubted plebiscite on an isolated question; and, apparently, if sanctioned by popular approbation, to delete or modify this objectionable constitutional provision, and thus abridge the period which must elapse before moving the capital northward to a more convenient and strategic location. Accordingly, on December 19, the House adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee "to take into consideration the propriety of taking the sense of the people of this State, on that part of the Constitution which fixes the seat of Government at Corydon until the year 1825, with leave to report by bill or otherwise. ''60 The speaker immediately appointed a committee of 9 representatives. This committee, impressed with the propriety of submitting the question to the people, returned a favorable report and a joint resolution on December 26. Sentiment in the House crystallized slowly. On January 9, an attempt to indefinitely postpone the measure was lost by a vote of 7 to 21, and it was immediately thereafter considered at length in the Committee of the Whole. Three days later, on January 12, the consideration of the measure was resumed and with little apparent 59. See page xxii. 60. 61. The resolution was presented by Mr. Beggs of Clark county. This committee consisted of three representatives from Clark county, an one each from Jefferson, Washington, Harrison, Jackson, Knox and Franklin. |