Marshall was generally an advocate of separation of powers and temperance when it came to the use of executive power, but, even so, he chafed at the cumbersome process for amending the state’s 1851 Constitution — requiring as it did, passage of two consecutive General Assemblies and approval, not just by a majority of votes, but by a majority of those casting votes (so, if the “ayes” outnumber the “nos” but are less than 51% of the ballots cast, the Constitutional provision would not pass.) During the 10 years from 1894 to 1904, when the Progressive movement was in full bloom, the other states had adopted 230 constitutional amendments while Indiana had failed to adopt one.
One of Marshall’s close advisers was a lawyer by the name of Jacob Piatt Dunn. Looking at some happy language from the Declaration of Independence and the somewhat irregular method by which the 1851 Constitution was passed, in 1911, Dunn suggested that the entire Constitution could be swapped out more easily than the existing one could be amended. He suggested that the new Constitution could be recommended by one General Assembly (all Democratic since the 1910 election) and ratified by the voters.
The document that Dunn produced and Marshall then provided to the General Assembly for debate included such earlier reform attempts as granting the legislature the power to fix requirements for admission to the bar and increasing the size of the Indiana Supreme Court from five justices to as many as eleven. Other revisions included increasing the size of the Indiana House of Representatives to 130 members; lengthening the General Assembly session to 100 days; giving the legislature the power to enact workmen’s compensation laws and measures for the initiative, referendum, and recall of all elected officials except judges; requiring a three-fifths vote by the House and Senate to override a governor’s veto; giving the governor a line-item veto power on appropriation bills; prohibiting salary increases for public officials during the term to which they were elected; easing the amending process for the Constitution; and providing political parties the opportunity to declare for or against constitutional amendments at their conventions and making such a decision a part of their tickets to be acted on by voters.
Marshall also suggested that the new Constitution would improve the integrity of elections. Among other things, it would have restricted eligibility to male citizens who had paid a poll tax and could read. It also required residency in the state for 12 months and in a precinct for 30 days prior to the election. With respect to foreign-born residents of Indiana, the 1851 Constitution required that foreigners declare an intent to become citizens. Marshall observed that, back then, Indiana wanted people to immigrate. In 1911, apparently the days of really wanting immigrants was over and, besides, they were probably the “wrong type” of immigrants.
Republicans were not amused. They derided a “Constitution” that was ginned up in a party caucus by men who had not been elected to frame a Constitution. Senator James Sexson of Owen County had a little fun:
On February 16, 1911, Sexson introduced a Senate resolution appointing [Governor] Marshall as a committee of one with the power to put the new Constitution into effect without holding an election. The resolution also gave Marshall the power to “revise the Lord’s prayer, amend the Declaration of Independence, repeal the Mosaic law, bring the thirty nine articles of faith down to date, abridge the sermon on the mount and do all other things as will appear in his infinite wisdom and supreme interest in the welfare of the people, to be fitting and proper.”
The resolution did not pass. Republican newspapers, including the Indianapolis Star, blasted the proposal relentlessly. Nevertheless, the legislation passed. Opponents went to court. By a slim 3 – 2, the Indiana Supreme Court decided that the General Assembly did not have the legislative authority to propose replacement of the 1851 Constitution except through the amendment process laid out in that document.
Even with a loss, however, the furor over the proposed amendment apparently helped Marshall’s reputation at the national Democratic convention in 1914 and helped him gain the Vice-Presidential spot, running with Woodrow Wilson.
Dog, today’s (7.31.16) Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette has an article about Indiana and vice-presidential candidates. The article, written by a Ball State historian, recounts a reporter knocking on Thomas Marshall’s door around midnight on July 3, 1912. Marshall wanted to know why he was awakened in the middle of the night. The reporter said that the party convention in Baltimore just nominated him as VP. The reporter wanted to get a comment from Marshall. Marshall first said that couldn’t it wait until morning. Then Marshall said: Seems to me its an old honor for the state, Henry (the reporter). Three vice presidents and I don’t know how many more have tried…Y’know, more first-rate second-rate men have come out of Indiana than any other.”
.
Hah. Thanks for passing that along. Marshall was great with a quote. During a speech with a long list of “what this country needs,” he said “What this country needs is more of this; what this country needs is more of that . . . What this country needs is a really good five-cent cigar.”
Another Hoosier that was good for a quote was Earl Butz, former Secretary of Agriculture. Likely a little too good, in that his racism and prejudice, when revealed by some of his statements, ended his political career.