The journal of yesterday was read and ap- py any room that may be selected, either the proved.

elsewhere, I think it is time that the matter was decided. If the Convention choose to appoint a committee I have no objection.

Mr. GIBSON. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Switzerland, and I would remark to the Convention, as many gentlemen are, perhaps, not aware of the fact, that there is in this city a suitable room that may be had at a reasonable charge. I allude to Concert Hall. It is in a new building on Washington street. The Hall is 55 feet square,

giving to each 10 square feet. The room is well ventilated and well lighted. I think it is very well fitted for our purpose.

Mr. KELSO. I wish barely to make an inquiry, and it is, whether we have a right to call upon these officers to furnish a place for the sitting of this Convention, when they have already discharged that duty. When we first came here we were advised of the inconveniences we would be subjected to if we were to occupy the Hall, and began casting about for a more suitable place for an accommodation. At that time we did not think of calling upon these officers to furnish a different place for us. We sent our own committee to make the arrange-sufficiently large to accommodate 300 persons, ment. Why should we not do so again? It is a mere change of position. It is true we have the occupancy of this Hall at present, and I apprehend there is no legal power that could turn us out, yet I am for yielding to the House of Representatives on the ground that it would be incommoding the two bodies, the Senate as well as the House, if we retain possession of this Hall. For this reason I am decidedly in favor of surrendering up the Hall. But I would inquire why may not a committee of our own body select a room! They will take pains to make arrangements at the cheapest rate, and will supply us with conveniences equal to those we have here. I will move, therefore, to amend the resolution by striking out the officers named in it, and inserting "a committee of five."

The question was taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Switzerland, and it was agreed to.

Mr. BORDEN. Inasmuch as the resolution has been altered, I do not wish to be considered responsible for it any longer.

The question was then taken on the adoption of the resolution as amended, and decided in the affirmative.

So the resolution as amended was adopted. Mr. HELMER moved that the Convention adjourn sine die on the 8th day of January, 1851.

Mr. KELSO moved to amend the resolution by inserting, "Provided, we are through with our labors."

Mr. HARDIN moved that the amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. RARIDEN. I move to lay both the resolution and amendment on the table. The PRESIDENT. make that motion.

The gentleman cannot

The question being on laying the amendment on the table,

Mr. KENT demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and being taken were-yeas 42, nays 83-as follows:

Mr. BORDEN. Allow me, sir, to explain my views in relation to this matter. In the first place, one of the objects which I had in view was, to bring up the question in regard to adjournment. It has been talked of somewhat that the Convention might adjourn to meet again after the close of the session of the Legislature. If we are to adjourn and go home and return again, the sooner we determine it the better. I do not say that I am for adjournment. I only say that if we are to adjourn over the holidays, the adjournment should take place soon. At all events, we ought to deter- YEAS.-Messrs. Badger, Bicknell, Blythe, mine whether we shall go on and complete our Bowers, Bracken, Chandler, Chenowith, Clark business, or have an intermission. If we are of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cole, going to adjourn at all it ought to be done soon. Conduit, Cookerly, Crawford, Davis of Parke, And in reply to the gentleman from Switzer- Duzan, Farrow, Gootee, Gordon, Hardin, Heim, land I have only to say this, that the provision Helmer, Huff, Kendall of Wabash, Logan, Mathof the law which I have read declares that theer, May, McLean, Moore, Murray, Newman, Governor, Auditor, and Treasurer of State are authorized to provide suitable accommodations for this Convention. I think that the Legislature designed to put this matter into the hands NAYS. Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, of those officers. We have the right, I have Beard, Berry, Biddle, Borden, Bourne, Brookno doubt, to provide a place for ourselves if we bank, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Chapman, Colfax, choose to do so. I am not strenuous about the Davis of Madison, Davis of Vermillion, Dick, matter, but I do not think that there is any dis- Dobson, Dunn of Jefferson, Dunn of Perry, position on the part of the Convention to hold Edmonston, Elliott, Fisher, Foster, Garvin, this Hall to the exclusion of the Legislature. Gibson, Graham of Miami, Haddon, Hall, HamIt would produce a bad state of feeling. And ilton, Harbolt, Hendricks, Hitt, Hogin, Holman, I doubt whether we could hold it. The law Hovey, Howe, Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kent, does not authorize the Legislature to meet any Kendall of Warren, Lockhart, Maguire, March, where else than in this Hall, and as arrange-McClelland, McFarland, Miller of Fulton, Milments must be made for our accommodation ler of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney,

Rariden, Read of Clark, Shannon, Smiley,
Smith of Scott, Stevenson, Trimbly, Watts,
Wunderlich, Yocum, and Zenor-42.

1

Morgan, Morrison of Marion, Mowrer, Nave,
Niles, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Craw
ford, Prather, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Ritchey,
Robinson, Schoonover, Sherrod, Snook, Smith
of Ripley, Spann, Steele, Tague, Tannehill,
Taylor, Thomas, Thornton, Todd, Wallace,
Walpole, Wheeler, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, and
Mr. President-83.

Mr. COOKERLY. I think it is evidently time to think about adjourning. The Convention has been in session for nine weeks now, and I am fearful that if we do not adopt some rule in regard to the matter, we may be here ten weeks longer. For one, I must confess, that I am getting tired of being here, and I should like to see some system adopted by which we may proceed a little more regularly with our business than we have heretofore done. For that reason I will move to postpone this resolution for two weeks from this day.

Mr. GIBSON moved to lay the resolution and pending amendment on the table. The motion was agreed to.

not take place until October; and it is also to be presumed that the new Constitusion will be submitted to the people anterior to that time. But if the Constitution should not be adopted, then the elections would go on as at present; but if adopted, and the elections ordered to be holden in October, how are the districts to be formed unless it is done by the Convention? It is the duty of the Convention to do it, and if we fail to do it, how are the people to know how many to elect? I make these remarks because some gentlemen have expressed doubts as to the propriety of our districting the State for representative purposes.

Mr. SMITH of Ripley. The object I had in view in offering the resolution, was to bring the attention of the Convention to the subject. I know it is held by a great many gentlemen here, that the Convention has nothing to do with the matter. But I have been unable, myself, to see how the provisions of the new Constitution are to be carried into effect without districting the State for judicial and representaMr. SMITH of Ripley offered a resolution tive purposes. I have thought this point worin relation to the propriety of districting the thy the attention of the Convention, and I ofState for judicial and representative purposes.fered the resolution for the purpose of bringing Mr. COOKERLY moved to strike out the word "judicial." There was no necessity whatever, he said, in his opinion, for the Convention troubling themselves about judicial circuits in this connection.

A VOICE. It is all right.

Mr. COOKERLY. I withdraw the motion. Mr. KELSO suggested that it would be better to strike out "representative." If the State were districted for judicial purposes that was all the districting that was necessary.

Mr. SMITH of Ripley said he had no objection to modify his resolution.

Mr. PEPPER of Crawford. It is desirable to know, in the first place, how many judicial circuits we need, and until another committee make their report this cannot be ascertained. I move, therefore, that the resolution be laid on the table for the present.

Mr. PEPPER, at the request of Mr. Foster, withdrew his motion to lay on the table.

Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that that part of the resolution that relates to forming judicial districts had better be left to the judiciary committee. And that part that relates to the representative districts to the committee on the apportionment of representation. I will here remark, as there seems to be some discrepencies of opinion in regard to the power of the Convention to prescribe the Senatorial and Representative districts, that it appears to me to be so plain a matter that I can hardly see how any gentleman can be opposed to it. It is clearly the duty of the Convention to form Senatorial and Representative districts. The presumption is, from the indications that we have had, that the elections hereafter to be held, if this Constitution should be adopted, will

the question up. If I have not given the resolution the proper reference, if gentlemen think that it ought to go to a larger committee, one from each judicial circuit, I will modify it so that it shall be referred to a committee of thirteen, one from each judicial circuit.

Mr. PEPPER of Ohio. I wish to say, in respect to this subject, that it is one that did not enter into the contemplation of either my constituents or myself before the election. It was not expected by me, nor was it expected by any of my constituents as far as I know, that this Convention would enter into any arrangement of this kind. I am opposed to the Convention taking into its hands the districting of the State for senatorial, representative, or judicial purposes.

Mr. FOSTER.
Mr. PEPPER.
Mr. FOSTER.

Who will do it?
The Legislature.
What Legislature?

Mr. PEPPER. The Legislature that will first meet after the adoption of the Constituion. I have not risen to make a speech on the subject, and shall content myself with voting against the proposition.

Mr. KELSO. I am decidedly in favor of the Convention taking upon its shoulders the responsibility of districting the State into judicial circuits. I want to see this Convention make as fair a division as they can of the State into judicial circuits, in which shall be held either two or three circuit courts in each year, and five judicial circuits, in each of which one supreme court judge shall be elected.

We cannot very well take the one division independently of the other. So far as districting the State for representative purposes is concerned, I am not going to make to that part

of the proposition at present any strenuous objection, it can do no harm to allow it to go to a { select committee of thirteen, and let them consider it.

Mr. BORDEN.

It strikes me that we are proposing to raise a select committee to whom shall be referred matters that properly belong to the committee on miscellaneous provisions, the committee of which the gentleman from Hancock is chairman. On looking over the Constitutions of the various States it will be found that each of these has attached to it a schedule or explanatory provisions as to the mander in which it shall be put in force. This schedule divides the State into districts for representative purposes, and also into districts for judicial purposes. It is not supposed of course that the Constitution is to do more than to fix and declare certain principles, and the provisions for carrying it into effect will be no part of the Constitution itself, but will be appended by way of schedule. I take it that the matter does not apply to the committee on apportionment, or to the committee on the legislative department, for they have nothing to do but to determine the number of the members of the Legislature. It should not go to a select committee, but to the committee on miscellaneous provisions. When the number of senators and representatives shall be fixed, and the number of judicial districts ascertained, then the committee on miscellaneous provisions can proceed to act upon this matter.

Mr. SMITH of Ripley. A single remark. We have the right, I believe, and certainly it is according to my own wish, to send this matter to a standing committee instead of a select committee. I prefer that it should remain as I first offered it. I will, therefore, take back my acceptance of the modification.

Mr. RITCHEY. The question of apportionment was spoken of during the canvass in my county, and it was presumed both by candidates and electors that it was necessary that the districting of the State should be done by the Convention. I think if gentlemen would reflect for a moment they would see that it is a matter of necessity that it should be done. The Legislature by a provision of the old Constitution will have to district the State this winter. It may be that the new Constitution will not be adopted. The Legislature will of necessity have to apportion the State, and if we say nothing about districting the State, and especially if we adjourn until after the next session of the Legislature is closed, they will not know how many districts we may agree upon. And it may become necessary to call a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of districting the State. You must either impose the duty upon the Governor of calling the Legislature together after we adjourn, for the purpose of districting the State, or you must require the Legislature that sits this winter to adopt an ap

portionment for both the old and the new Constitution, and as their session is limited to six weeks, [a voice-"O no, they are not limited!"] Yes, sir, they are limited, because their per dium runs out at the expiration of six weeks, and that is tantamount to a limitation. Then they are under the necessity of forming an apportionment under the old and the new Consti-tution. It is, I think, better for us to do it. I look upon it as a work that is obligatory upon I care but little as to what committee has the consideration of this matter.

us.

Mr. MORRISON of Marion said: The debate has been quite tedious, so many members having spoken to its merits on the question of postponement. On that occasion I desired to say a few words, but quietly waived my privilege for the accommodation of other members. As the resolution under consideration involves the same principles I will allude briefly to the position of the question as it now presents it{ self.

The Convention on yesterday, decided by a close vote, that the future ratio of representation should not exceed fifty senators, and one hundred representatives. This number is the same that now exists under the laws formed under the provisions of the old Constitution.. With some reluctance I voted for even so great. numbers as were formerly and are at present in our General Assembly. For all convenient and practical purposes I am of opinion, a less number would be preferable, but in obedience to a call upon our generosity not to disfranchise the smaller counties the members from Marion, with one voice gave them four votes, in favor of the then proposition of the small counties. They now attempt to push their claim farther, and to demand a greater number than one hunddred representatives. Here I and my colleagues must pause.

I would say this to our friends with whom we acted on yesterday, that if they are still content and satisfied with the numbers as decided upon, we will still sustain them; but if they are determined to presist in demanding one hundred and sixteen, or one hundred and twenty representatives, and are desirous to establish the principle that territory, instead of population and taxation, shall constitute the basis of representation, that we, the delegation from Marion county, as well as other members, will recede from our former votes, and go for a less number than one hundred, before we will go for a greater number. In voting for fifty senators and one hundred representatives, we went fully as far as we believed our constituents would justify our action. We had added nothing, in this respect, to the former law and the old Constitution, therefore, we could urge in justification of our votes that we desired no county to be placed in a worse condition, as to representation, under the new Constitution than it was placed under the old one. [A voice

"is that a threat."] No, this is no threat, but the plain truth, spoken after due deliberation, but in no unkind spirit. Thus far will we go but no farther, and gentlemen may make their calculations knowingly upon that gronnd. If

open highways and provide for their imports and exports. They have a portion of independent sovereignty, and have, in many cases, a separate and distinct interest, which requires to be represented in the halls of legislation. For instance: if an important State road, or plank road, or railroad is to be granted in the direction of their county, it may be greatly their interest, and, perhaps, their just right, that it should pass through their county. It may be also very important to them to have this public improvement enter and depart their county lines at parIt is easily avoided by let-ticular points. This cannot be done by local legislation; State works are emphatically legislative duties. It is in vain to say that these

we have to go forward or to reduce, we must and will recede-or in other words go for a { smaller number.

I would also state, that if the ratio be maintained as it now is, there will be no necessity of referring the matter to a committee for the purpose of apportioning the State for representative purposes. ting the districts remain as they now are, until they be changed by a General Assembly, which shall be brought together under the new Con-works should look only to the public good, and stitution. The Legislature now about to meet will find no necessity to change them, except it may be to do justice where a change has been found in the increase or decrease of population. If we attempt to district the State, and to apportion senators and representatives, we make our work, the new Constitution, liable to all { the objections which those counties will feel and urge, where their representation has been lessened. All that we have to do, is to provide that the existing ratio shall exist until changed by a subsequent Legislature

that the counties through which they pass should have no voice in it; for, although this may be sound in principle, every one who has the least experience in legislation, knows that the points of commencement and termination, as well as intermediate points, are settled by compromises and agreements, before the bill passes for their execution.

From this, all will see that the interest of any county, not having a representative on the floor to claim her particular rights, may, and will most likely, have her rights neglected.

I may hereafter reply to some of the argu- It is also a truth, that small communities, ments that have been made to extend the mem- having the various arts, trades, and agricultural bers, but as this resolution does not properly pursuits among them, require laws for their proafford the best occasion, I may take another op- tection and encouragement, the same as large portunity. But this much I will now say, that communities. A law protects five thousand as if members from small counties do presist in easily as it does fifty. In another point of the attempt to take a rightful power from the view-and it seems to me to be a forcible onelarger counties, or to establish any other basis is this: that if a member represents three counof representation than population and taxation,ties, he is often compelled, from their conflictthey must expect the delegations from the large counties to interpose their power to prevent such sheer injustice to the people whom they represent. For myself there are two radical principles which I think are well settled, and which I must adhere to, viz: That population and incidentaly taxation are the only true basis for representation in a republican govern-promotion-is it right, sir, to place men be

ment.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. PRESIDENT: I have listened with great attention to the arguments which have been advanced upon this question, and feel convinced that we should base representation principally upon territory.

ing interest, to displease his constituents in two of them, by which the interest of two counties are not represented; and, of course, the representative must fall under the displeasure of two-thirds of his constituents. Is it right, Mr. President, that gentlemen-particularly those in the prime of life, looking forward to honorable

tween cross-fires in this manner, by which they must fall, and their laudable aspirations be blighted in the bud? And, beyond and above this, is it right that a part of his district should be unrepresented? I feel clearly convinced that territory should principally influence us The object of nearly all legislation is to un- in providing the basis of representation, and fold the resources that are buried in the soil that every county should have one representato develope minerals, and bring into operation tive. Upon this principle, there will be left, water power-to give suitable aid and protec-under the ratio proposed, ten members, to be tion to mechanical skill, and by equitable laws, to encourage all industrial pursuits.

Now, whenever even a small community are organized into a separate county, they necessarily require the various mechanic arts to supply their natural wants; they must also have among them a portion of the mercantile interest; and the agricultural interest, to the fullest extent, requires the especial care of the Legislature, to

apportioned among the larger counties; and they have this for their consolation, also, that the new counties will soon have a population that will entitle them to what they now ask as a favor.

Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe. I do not think it is proper to bring up again the question that was discussed so fully yesterday. But I think the observations of the gentleman from Marion