text:
User Tag List
Results 52 to 68 of 171
Thread: Adding one extra cross string
I am not in favour of an extra cross, especially across the bottom grommet #8. It increases air resistance at a vulnerable point of the racquet.
On the contrary, reducing one cross string specifically on the bottom grommet #10 from the standard 22 or 21 cross strings will see an improved playability.
Preventing or minimizing tension loss at the last cross string is subjective. Some will claim there is no tension loss. Some will say there will be. However, a tensioned tie-off will always lose more tension than a starting knot. With this in mind you are free to choose where you want to have your cross starting knot and your cross tie-off knot. That half of the stringbed with the starting knot will always have a stiffer stringbed bed than the other half of the stringbed with the tie-off knot.
Obviously the top half is more important than the bottom part insofar as badminton racquets are concerned. You can even allow for one missing cross string at the bottom, say at grommet #10, for improved playability. Now, for those who champion for a stiffer bottom half stringbed which a bottom up cross stringing pattern will achieve, do you think you can omit one cross string at the top half the way you can do with the bottom half? Hence the importance of a stiffer top half stringbed relative to the bottom half.
Also, contrary to what someone has said earlier stringing from the bottom will not give you a stiffer stringbed at the top half relative to the bottom half.
Why is it that difficult to see the real forest for the trees?
Hummm, I think you are so right on the air resistance. Let's do a quick calculation here.
Assuming all the string are same length. 45/44-1=2.2%. Factor into the total cross section of the entire racquet frame which is about 3x (or close to 4x) of cross section of the total cross section of the string all together. That give you about 2.2%*0.25=0.55% increase in air resistance. WOW! that means if I can smash at 200 km/h max, it will slow down my smash to 199 km/h. Gee, what a difference.
You know what, we proved you wrong time and time again. All you can say is I know a method, but I won't tell you how. Please provide the calculation or any real prove. Other wise, if you have nothing smart to say, just don't say anything.
You can conduct some tests on the courts either with different diameter strings or with the same string, one with one missing cross string at bottom grommet #10, bith using identical racquets.
It is well known in badminton circles that thinner strings have more power from faster racquet speed due to reduced air resistance as well as better control. Do you need to come publish a scientific paper to support this?
It is also well known among racquet manufacturers that the area around the T-joint is the biggest culprit affecting air resistance. For those who are friends of Yonex, ask Yonex for their patent papers on their T-joint patent filing in which mention was made about the need to reduce this T-joint area to reduce air resistance for incresed power/speed. BTW, Yonex of course did not come out with any scientific paper/calculations about this.
You don't have to use rocket science to find this out. That would be work hours wasted.
That is the trouble with calculations that are misguided. A racquet in play is not a stationary object placed inside a wind tunnel. Follow the movement of the racquet and arm and you will see the late acceleration of the hand/wrist before impact. Notice why the shaft is slim and round? This affects air resistance. But as you go up the racquet to midpoint, ie the T-joint, there is a sudden rather massive thing relative to the air-cutting slim design of the shaft. Air resistance factors get bad from the shaft to the T-joint or waist. They are weighted more than those parts of the racquet at the top. This is why the velocity at the tip of the racquet is higher than at the butt end. You move half an inch with your hand, it translates to a few feet at the racquet tip.
Sometimes common sense makes better sense. At least it won't jump to a silly conclusion like what you are saying above that string thickness is irrelevant to power/playability.
Also, I don't know what rocket science calculations you have used to support your earlier claim that stringing the crosses from the bottom up will result in a stiffer upper half stringbed than the bottom half. Without any detailed scientific calculations, I say this is a wrong conclusion.
again, u r making exaggeration to make your points because your points are weak.
[1] not incorrect on less air resistance from thinner string but i believe those pros who chosed thinner strings (bg66, ngy98, bg80, etc for examples) did it for the string qualities like repulsion, feel, not air resistance reduction. If air resistance is such a big factor to them, why NOT all pros use thin strings?
[2] not incorrect but u r missing yonex's objective, which are 3 of them. (1) The T joint surface area is significant unlike 1 cross string. Reduction of 10-20% of area is a mark improvement where as SH had indicated, a reduction of 0.5% in air drag due to strings does not even warrant a minor footnote. (2) the old external T joint has sharp edges which increase air drag. Shape affect air resistance too, not just surface area. By hiding the T joint internally, the T joint external surface can be smooth out to reduce drag significantly on shape form factor alone. (3) with a 1 piece looking frame+shaft, the racket cosmetically look much sexier. Yonex doesn't need to do any scientific paper/calculations about this because it's a no brainer. Too bad u only manage to come up with just 1 of the 3 reasons why yonex did it.Last edited by cooler; 02-14-2010 at 03:06 AM.
I'm not going to get involved in any of the rest of it but... will 1 string increase the velocity of a racket? I very much doubt it. Beyond the whole cross sectional area aspect, there is the fact that we're not talking about laminar flow, it's turbulent flow due to the number of strings involved.
You can't even just isolate the strings in order to compare cross sections. If you consider the cross section of the entire racket, from handle to top of racket, the area that resists airflow is the addition of the frame and strings.
Just to do some math: assuming the string is 9.2m long and 5% is actually in the grommets and outside the frame, and you have a 0.7mm diameter string, you end up with 9.2m x 0.95 x .0007 = 0.0067 square meters. If you look at the frame and assume an average thickness of 7.5mm and a length of 710mm (ignoring the shaft for the moment), you get 0.0075 x 0.7 = 0.00525 square meters.
Add the two together and you get 0.01195 square meters. Now 1 string at the bottom is 0.016m long and 0.0007 m in diameter. This is 0.0000112 square meters.
0.0000112 / 0.01195 = 0.1 percent decrease in cross sectional area and this is ignoring the shaft.
I may not be a rocket scientist but I am an engineer. Can 0.1% in the right place affect airflow and air resistance? Definitely... can a human feel the difference? NO! There is almost no way that a person will be able to tell the difference of 0.1% decrease in cross sectional area that's offering air resistance.
To look at the strings, let's compare 0.7mm to 0.66mm. We've already done the calculations on the head so for just the string you get 9.2m x 0.95 x 0.00066 = 0.00577, add that to the racket head and you get 0.0110.
The difference is 7.8%... that is an appreciable difference and should be felt.
Keep in mind that if you include the area of the shaft it will lower both those percentages but I wanted to keep it simple for now.
So math has both disagreed with you in that 1 string will make a difference but has also agreed that thickness of the string will make a difference.
Please don't put down math as it's pure science and logic, I've also found that "common sense" really is not that common... quite rare actually.Last edited by druss; 02-14-2010 at 03:28 AM.
you are being conservative. The last cross is ~45cm from the handle base. Since your calculation was based on average string length and average radius to the sweet spot of ~54cm, correction to angular velocity must be adjusted because air drag is highly function of velocity. U assumed 200 km/hr as average, that would be at the sweetsport but the last cross is located lower. Simple math of 45/54*200= 166.7 km/hr. So that 166.7^2/200^2*0.55%=0.382% increase in air resistance. There are several more correction can be made but it's late now
Just to clarify here because I didn't want to clutter my other post with side comments...
The velocity at the tip is higher because it has to travel a longer arc than any other part of the racket, since the rotation of the racket is the same for all parts of the racket (ignoring bending for now), that means that it has to travel a higher distance in the same amount of time as the rest of the racket.
Since velocity = distance / time, it's pretty easy to see why the velocity is higher at the tip. This has absolutely nothing to do with weight.
two points
1. your 7.8% is an appreciable difference between strings only but on a total surface area basis including racket frame, shaft, your fist, your arm, the overall net reduction in air resistance is much less than 7.8%. If i wax my racket arm, i can make up for the added air resistance of using regular string
2. bless that panda, his leisure time in the zoo allow him to measure diameter for various badminton strings. In reality, bg66 isn't 0.66mm check it out here
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...6&postcount=67 So again, the real reduction of air resistance of using 'thinner' string isn't that much.
So, taneepak's theories of damaging heat from using an awl, and reduction of racket speed due to 1 extra cross string only impresses the gulliblesLast edited by cooler; 02-14-2010 at 03:52 AM.
Master Taneepak,
I respect your experience and knowledge if they can convince me. Is that you who said the heat will affect the string when using the awl? I just ask you to back up your theory with substantiation. You said my question is childish, frivolous, and irrelevant. Why did you say that? We all know there is heat produced when using an awl. What's the amount? If you know how to answer my question, please do it. Don't just preach your theory with blah blah blah. Please respect other people's question.Last edited by kklam; 02-14-2010 at 04:43 AM.
I have tried many ways, including the use of the awl and other tools, to hold tension before the last tie-off many years back. At low tensions the awl could get away with breakage but it still was unkind to the grommets' durability, subjecting them to sometimes severe compression. At very high tensions of 35lbs, the typical 10% higher tension than the standard cross string tension of say 32lbs, the string would snap frequently either upon inserting the awl tightly or following the insertion of the awl and upon releasing the 35lbs tensioned string. On the other hand, you can use a tie-off knot, pull the string outside the frame and tension it at 35lbs. Since there is no awl to cause such a traffic jam inside the grommet with the tie-off knot, there is hardly any heat to do mischief. With the modern stringing machine the tensioner or crank takes over the work of the awl in holding the tie-off tensioned string.
Has anyone tried to test out the one cross string less (remember it must be the bottom grommet #10 to be omitted) for improved power and playability?
Also thick strings become thinner strings when highly tensioned. Likewise thin strings become even thinner when highly tensioned. OTBE, thin strings are more powerful plus better control because of reduced air resistance.
You will note that I am effectively advocating one cross string less at bottom grommet #10 for improved power and playability. Let us see-only time will tell-if I am right or a lot of hot air.
Please excuse me but I have indeed tried this pattern before with the cross string at B10 omitted with two racquets namely, AT700LTD with NBG95 at 25lbs and Cab15 with BG85 at 21lbs, both racquets tied using the 2 piece method. As for my observation, they did NOT feel ANY different compared to my other racquets which are strung with the regular Yonex pattern, not any easier to swing nor easier to generate power with.
Perhaps you would say that it's because of the low tension the test was conducted, or the stringers' quality? I certainly do not know and can't contribute more into the reduction of one cross string for gaining performance theory.
Master Taneepak,
Thanks for further elaborating on what you said. I appreciate that. Regarding the "heat" and "air friction" issue we are discussing here, you are right theoretical. However, can you use a more a scientific approach to prove the "heat" and "air friction" you are talking are really significant. Other members can use simple scientific calculation to prove you are wrong, why can't you use the same approach to defend what you said?
Happy New Year.
when you say skip a cross at B10, what do you advocate for the weaving pattern to achieve your result? Do you advocate keeping the weave the same for the B9/B11 crosses, meaning they look just like as if the B10 had been there, or should you still alternate, as if B10 had never actually existed?
The weaving pattern for any two adjacent strings must always be opposite from each other. In other words, when the grommet #9 cross is on top of main string A location, then the grommet #11 cross should be below the same Main A string location.
Another two items or things you may want to get rid off for better playability are:
1. The 4 pairs of grommets at the T-joint. I don't know why Yonex keeps using them. Do it like Li Ning with their N series racquets. Take off those paired grommets at the T-joint and either replace them with single ones or cut and trim the paired grommets to narrower single grommets.
Also use a sharp diagonal plier to cut off the lengths of the grommets that are too long near the T-joint. Reducing the grommet lengths at this vulnerable T-joint area will also improve speed. Long grommets at the T-joint were initially put in to reduce string and frame vibrations.
2. Get rid of any bulging grommets, especially those that come in pairs, on both sides of the frame at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Replace them with single and small grommets that are flush with the frame. This will make the racquet more aerodynamic and faster.
Try the above and let me know.
Similar Threads
adding 2 pounds to the cross, even on six point support machines?
By asmd6230 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 3: 11-15-2011, 05:22 PM -
stretching or adding string tension that is already strung on a racquet
By nutbad5981 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 6: 02-24-2010, 01:37 AM -
AT 700 LE extra cross
By takumifujiwara in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 18: 03-15-2009, 02:02 AM -
Add a little extra tension if pulling more string?
By lostatse in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 5: 05-12-2008, 08:45 AM -
Thinner or thicker string for extra power
By boilermaker in forum General ForumReplies: 0: 01-14-2003, 04:57 AM


text:
Need it by Christmas Eve?
Men's adidas Outdoor Shoes
Terrex Swift Solo Shoes
Black/Mid Cinder/Solid G (Q21051)
Size Chart
+ Save To Wishlist
Rated 4.6 out of 5Â by 15
Rated 1 out of 5Â by Adidas Lover since 6 Painful Review
Received the shoes with great excitement and anticipation, looked very nice and I decided not to put them on as we were leaving for a trip and I had so much confidence in the adidas show that I felt I had nothing to worry about. An hour before leaving the house, I was now ready to put on these beauties and the moment I wore them, the area near the Achilles painfully dug in. Moved around a little and the painful yet obvious verdict was apparent...the shoes had to go back and I had to come up with something different for my 27 hour journey. I am out of the country now but will have to rerun the shoes when I get back home. Very sad :-(
November 22, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by AdventureDude10 Awesome Hiking/Climbing Shoe
I used these to hike and climb Half Dome in Yosemite, CA. These shoes were up to the task. I'm a minimalist shoe guy, but I needed something light but tough on the rocky trails. The sole had good grip on the slick rock up the cables. Be sure you break them in first. Great shoe!
July 15, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by Banders Shoes of the future
These shoes are pretty awesome. They're way comfortable, and very light. The tongue is super thin, which i love, and the toe is designed so that it will last over time. They have been made with an intelligent design. They breathe well and look great. You can't go wrong with these shoes. I think they are totally stylin'. They fit my style and personality well.
September 6, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by belligerentYeti Solid shoes
Worn these shoes up & down the Bruce Trail and Trans Canada trail System. Stiff compared to other approach or low terrain shoes but break in is real quick. On rocks these stick like gum rubber even during wet conditions. Good protection from side scuff or impact over uneven rocky paths. Some limited climbing and would do in a pinch for sheer face. A great shoe that is underpriced in my opinion but get them 1/2 size larger than normal shoe size.
August 15, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by SSGKemp Great Shoe
I bought this shoe (in black and gray) as a lightweight backup tactical shoe for swat operations. Shoes such as these are light and offer agility while still offering some protection for the front of the foot. The construction is solid without added weight. They also look stylish and are easily worn in casual settings. I ordered a size 12 initially but found it to be too small. I returned it for a size 13 and it was quickly sent out.
October 4, 2013
Rated 4 out of 5Â by Geotype Had To Return
I got my new Terrex Swift Solos, and they were waaaay too narrow. Oh Oh...I sent them back in the box using the handy return address provided by Adidas -- and I had my refund in less than a week!
Fantastic customer service, thank you Adidas.
March 7, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by Free-runner Very grippy!
These shoes have great grip. They are very comfortable and they look even better on your foot. I love the stealth rubber sole, it helps grip walls and what ever you desire to climb on. The light weight sole is great for running in. The Adiprene+ foam is great for hard landings! Thank you Adidas!
October 18, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by M4CK Black & Gray
I love everything about the shoe. I wish I would have ordered a 1/2 size bigger though, as the shoes run (IMO) a 1/2 size small. The shoe is very durable and well built. This is one of the products that I hope Adidas continues to make because it is such a good shoe.
August 11, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by osiro Excellent purchase
this shoe is comfortable, keep you going in a rough terrain
December 16, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by Orangeman29 Love 'em
Great grip and very comfortable. It did take a little while to break them in, but no complaints. Several people have stopped me to check them out.
November 25, 2013
Rated 4.6 out of 5Â by 15
Rated 5 out of 5Â by Kenny Stauffer comfortable, supportive, understated
I ordered the Terrex in black. It is understated and goes with casual dress as well as for participating in light activities.
November 19, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by Scottyyy Awesome!!
Very Happy! Recommend them to anyone! Would definitely buy another pair! Fit comfortable, and I wear them all the time!
November 27, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5Â by ljUS1 Great Shoe!
This is my second pair and I'm still happy with them. They fit great and just like the first pair I have.
October 16, 2013

subset: commoncrawl


text:
FRIDAY, February 4, 1881--10 a. m.J. N. Beard offered prayer.
Mr. BROWN, by leave, introduced a bill [S. 228] to create the liability of a master for injury to a servant resulting from fault, carelessness or negligence if a fellow servant which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Railroads.
Mr. Briscoe's bill [S. 96] to declare void all waivers of valuation and appraisement laws in notes of hand and other instruments of writing, coming up with a Committee report recommending indefinite postponement,
Mr. BRISCOE hoped that the Committee report would not concurred in. This bill is a matter of great importance to the people. It will affect a deserving class to a great extent to their special benefit and would bring about a much desired peaceful and bloodless revolution. As the law now stands, person may waive valuation and appraisement laws under which property is taken by virtue of execution and sold without regard to its value, and in many cases sold for not one-tenth part of its value. No detriment could result from the of this bill. In foreclosure of mortgages, where property has sold for not one-half its value, the remaining indebtedness is fastened on the mortgagor; his property is taken from him and a personal judgment follows.
In this way many well to do persons, because of some misfortune resulting from sickness, or loss of crops, the money shark has come in, and there are thousands burdened with personal judgements in this way. Whereas, if this bill passes, a great, very great relief would come to this deserving class of citizens. The capitalist, under such circumstances, frequently is not satisfied with even 33 per cent.
Mr. Hart hoped the report would not be concurred in. The bill is in the interest of the debtor class, while the present law is very oppressive on the poorer classes of citizens.
Mr. FOSTER also believed the bill has some good features in it, and hoped the bill would be laid on the table so it can be considered at some future time.
Mr. CHAPMAN believed the bill can be as fully understood in five minutes as five days. It proposes to nullify that part of a contract with reference to collection of a debt which waives the benefit of valuation and appraisement laws. Senators can now make up their minds to say whether or not such contracts shall not be enforced. If it be policy to nullify that part, why not go a step further and say a man's contract in writing for money shall not be enforcable in any Court in this State? The effect of such a law would be to regard every man as incapable of making any contract in relation to his business. If there were less obstacles to he enforcement of the payment of debts in this State, the people could borrow money at least 2 per cent less than they can now.
Mr. TRAYLOR cited further reasons why the bill should not take up the time of the Senate at a future day. A majority of the debts contracted are for property sold. It is said this bill is wanted for benefit of the debtor class. Men buy corn and pork, etc, and give notes payable in ninety or more days for this property of the hard-working men-payable without intervention or appraisement laws-and say the maker of the note had all his real estate heavily mortgaged by the process of law, such notes can not be relied on. This bill would cause men who have money to loan to refuse to loan it, and would work, in other ways, detrimental to the public good.
Mr. VOYLES considered that men generally have discretion enough to leave out the waiver where they so desire. There is no use to undertake by legislation to say what a man shall or shall not do, in such matters. He hoped the report would be concurred in.
Mr. VIEHE favored concurrence in the report also. One of the principal objects of law is to enforce the carrying out of contracts as made and the true policy is to compel men to fulfill their contracts to the letter. How can it be possible that a man can allow his property to be sold for 10 per cent. of its value? as for real estate there is a full year given for redemption.
Mr. HENRY referred to other objections to the bill. It provides that all property shall be sold for two-thirds value, without regard to the contract. In cases where a Trustee misappropriates funds it is made to apply as well. He opposed the bill in every phase of it, for it proposes to take page: 124[View Page 124] away everything in the statute concerning waiving of valuation and appraisement laws.
Mr. Foster's amendment was rejected.
The report of the Committee was concurred in by yeas, 28; nays, 8; and so the bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Foster's bill [S. 7] to establish school libraries in cities of 15,000 inhabitants and over, being read the second time--
Mr. FOSTER knew of no opposition to the bill from any city affected by it.
Mr. VOYLES said he was in possession of a petition from New Albany embodying a protest against the passage of the bill.
The Committee on Education reported an amendment striking out "$15,000" and inserting "$10,000" in lieu, which was concurred in.
Mr. FOSTER moved to dispense with the Constitutional restriction that the bill may be read the third time now and put on its passage.
Mr. VOYLES, representing people to be effected by this bill, would like to examine it further before the final vote is taken upon it. Such a library should be under control of the Township Trustee, and not transferred to the hands of a School Board.
Mr. FOSTER could see no plausible objections to the bill; and even if mistaken in that, was satisfied the people of the State are desiring it. He had just received a note stating that a petition is now being circulated in New Albany, praying for the passage of this bill.
Mr. BROWN knew some Senators are not satisfied to vote for the bill now who might do so if a little time were given to further investigate it. As a friend of the bill he should vote against suspending the rules, believing that the bill will have a better chance pass at another time.
The motion to suspend the Constitutional restriction was agreed to--yeas, 34; nays, 12. The bill was considered as engrossed, read the third time, and passed by yeas, 42; nays, 5.
Pending the roll-call on the passage of the bill--
Mr. URMSTON, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said the bill is very imperfect in that it proposes an improper way of levying the taxes, placing it exclusively in the hands of school trustees, which is wrong, and it does not provide terms under which books may be taken out or who shall have access. It provides for receiving donations, which become the exclusive property of the Library. The bill does not provide that anyone shall be accountable for the safe preservation of the Library or property of the same, or that there shall even be a accounting of the moneys raised by taxation, by gift or otherwise, to anyone, but leaves the Trustees to spend the people's money in a way only known to themselves.
Mr. Leeper's bill [S. 52], amending Section 34 of the Common School law [describe in these reports of January 13], was read a second time with a Committee report, substituting new matter therefor, which was concurred in, and the bill ordered engrossed.
The substituted bill provides that School Trustees of cities and incorporated towns, not under the supervision of the County Superintendent, may appoint examiners for teachers in their respective schools with especial reference to their qualifications to teach in the grades for which they apply, the licenses thus granted to be good only in the school corporations where granted. Confers also on County Superintendents the power to examine teachers for schools under their supervision with reference to their qualifications for work they are to perform. Licenses to be granted for six, twelve, twenty-four or thirty-six months. Six months license to be a trial license. No further license to be granted to holder of such license unless able to advance to a twelve months' grade. Two consecutive thirty-six months' licenses entitled holder, upon certain prescribed examination, to license for eight years, styled professional license. Such license to be good in any school of the State under the supervision of the County Superintendent. Applicants in all cases required to pay into County Treasury fifty cents, such fee to be applied as a County Institute fund. The bill received the unqualified indorsement of the Senate Committee on Education, as well as many of the principal educators of the State. Professor Smart, Superintendent of Public Instruction, has been especially active in the interest of the measure, and pronounces it the best bill that has been presented to the General Assembly on that subject for many years.
A Special Committee reported a substitute for Mr. Comstock's bill [S. 62] and Mr. Bell's [S. 134] concerning the rights of married women, which, being read--
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend by substituting for Section 2 as follows:
"The contracts of married women may be enforced against them and damages recovered against them for non-performance of their contracts as if unmarried, except as in this act provided. They shall be liable for torts committed by them, and action may prosecuted against them for torts committed as if unmarried; and husbands shall not be liable for the contracts or tort of their wives."
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, these bills, report and pending amendment were made the special order for Tuesday at 10 o'clock a. m.
Then came the recess till 2 p. m.
Mr. HEFRON, from the Committee of Free Conference on the bil [S. 158] authorizing appointment of Clerks for the Committee on Revision of Laws, reported a unanimous agreement on a recommendation that the House recede from its amendment to the Senate bill, and that a substitute be adopted authorizing the Board of Revisions to appoint two Clerks, who, when not employed by the Board, shall assist in the engrossment of bills, under direction of the Chief Clerks of either Branch.
Mr. VIEHE indicated it as the general opinion that the codification of laws will be embraced in one book, no larger than the second volume the statutes.
Mr. SPANN saw no reason for the two additional Clerks proposed in this amendment; the understanding with many members being that this bill was originally introduced to obtain pay for for the Clerk long ago employed by the Committee on Revision.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the Board could get along without these Clerks, though the work would be delayed. The Revision Committee say they are needed, and he hoped the Conference Committee report would be concurred in.
Mr. LANGDON understood that the present clerical force finishes the work of the Board as fast as needed. As the work is unchanged since the introduction of the bill, there was no necessity for this increase of clerks. If the occasion arises for one or a dozen additional clerks they would be undoubtedly authorized.
Mr. HENRY saw in the bill no directory power to the Board of Commission to employ the two clerks unless they are needed. His understanding was that two additional clerks have serving since about the time this bill was introduced, and that accounts for the work being kept up.
The report was concurred in.
The following described bills were introduced, page: 125[View Page 125] read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees:
By Mr. MENZIES, for Committee on Revision of laws, [S. 239]: Concerning the Superintendent. [May appoint five legal Commissioners to aid the Court, with same pay].
Mr. VIEHE, for Committee on Revision [S. 240]: Concerning Grand and Petit Jury. [Circuit Court to appoint two Jury Commissioners, of opposite political parties, to draw jurymen.
Mr. GRUBBS called up the special order, being the consideration of Mr. Brown's bill [S. 3] to provide for calling a Constitutional Convention, and the report of a Senate Committee on the bill [H. R. 16] to provide for re submission of certain Constitutional Amendments, recommending the substitution therefor of the bill [S. 60] to provide for re-submission of the same amendments.
Mr. BROWN was conscious he could not be able to say what he desired in support of his measure for a Convention to change the organic law of the State. This is a matter of highest importance and gravest concern, and ought to receive the most careful consideration of every member. Did he believe such a body could set aside the present and Constitution, and present one divorced from the great principles of self-government contained in the present, he should not favor a bill providing for a Constitutional Convention.
There is no provision in the Constitution of 1816 on the subject of a future ratification of amendments or change of the Constitution, and it seems to me the wisdom of the early men of Indiana manifested itself in a high degree when they decreed that the popular will should be heard every twelfth year as to whether they would have a change or not.
Article 8, Section 1, of the Constitution of 1816 reads: "Every twelfth year after this Constitution shall have taken effect, at the general election held for Governor there shall be a poll opened, in which tie qualified electors of the state shall express, by vote, whether they are in favor of calling a Convention or not; and if there should be a majority of all the votes given at such election in favor of a Convention, the Governor shall inform the next General Assembly thereof, whose duty it shall be to provide by law for the election of the members to the Convention, number thereof, and the time and place of their meeting; which law shall not be passed, unless agreed to by a majority of all the Members elected to bother branches of the General Assembly; and which Convention, when met, shall have it in their power to revise, amend, or change the Constitution."
Thirty years have passed since our present Constitution was made, and the voice of the people of the State of Indiana has not been heard upon the subject as to whether they desire the present Constitution to remain longer. Has the time not come when the electors of the State should be heard upon the subject whether the present Constitution meets the present demands of the State or not?
If the people did not vote for a Convention, still it had to meet the favor of the Legislature for the Constitution said: "And if there should be a majority of all votes given at such election in favor of a Convention, the Governor shall inform the next General Assembly there of, whose duty it shall be to provide by law for the election of the members to the Convention, the number thereof, and the time and place of their meeting, which shall not be passed unless agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to both branches of the General Assembly." The Constitution of 1816 provided for its amendment only by a Convention. The Legislature had nothing to do with amending it. The Legislature simply provided for the calling of a Convention and the jurisdiction of the Conventiou was to "revise, amend, or change the Constitution." The Constitution proposed to limit the power and jurisdiction of the Convention. The Constitution said: "And which Convention, when met, shall have it in their to revise, amend, or change the Constitution."
I call the attention of Senators to this important question for the purpose of showing that notwithstanding the Constitution of 1816 made no provision for a new Constitution, but simply provided for its own ratification or amendment , notwithstanding that, the Convention called for the purposes of revision and amendment only made an entirely new Constitution in 1851, and it was ratified by the people. While an attempt to amend a Constitution is controlled by an existing Constitution, the right to make a Constitution is above the Constitution, and can be exercised by the people at any time and in any case.
The General Assembly of 1849, the pursuant to a provision of the Constitution of 1816, provided by law for the holding of an election to take the sense of the people as to whether they desired any change of their Constitution. The question propounded to the electors at the election was: "Are you in favor of a Convention to amend the Constitution?' The election was affirmative; therefore the people said they were in favor of having a Convention, and the Legislature, in obedience to the mandate of the people, called a Convention; and thus the Convention of 1851 was called for the purpose of amending the Constitution of 1816, and sat under the authority of the Constitution of 1816, which gave it power only to "revise, amend or change the Constitution" of 1816. The Convention made a new Constitution, notwithstanding the inhibition contained in the Constitution of 1816. Instead of being bound by mere revisory power, it overthrew the old Constitution entirely and made a new one in itself. Our present Constitution contains no provision for calling a Convention to make a new Constitution. It nowhere contemplates that a new Constitution shall ever be made. It only provides for its amendment.
I have said what I have in reference to the history of making and remaking the organic laws of the State to show that when the people desire to make new Constitutions they make them without any existing clause in reference thereto in the Constitution. The Legislature has full power to make the call, as if whole people had met in Convention for that purpose. Our present Constitution, like that of 1816, makes no provision for its substitution or for a new Constitution. The reason why no such provision was made is that in every Government, State or Nation, whether republican or monarchial, the people have the right to overthrow existing Government and establish a new one whenever they desire. "The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments-the legislative, the executive, including the administrative and judicial; and no person charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided. Thus it is that each co-ordinate branch of the Government is complete, and unlimited jurisdiction attaches to the concerns coming within that branch. The Legislature of the State upon the subject of legislation is absolute, unlimited and can not be restrained in any legislative act. To provide by an act for the calling of a Constitutional Convention is as clearly within legislative power, or within the legislative department of action, as any proposition can be. I will take it as conceded that the right is vested in the Legislative Department of the State Government to provide for calling a Constitutional Convention, beyond all controversy.
The present Constitution was adopted nearly thirty ears ago. Our population at that time was less than 1,000,000. It now nearly 2,000,000; and other advancements have been made in the page: 126[View Page 126] same proportion. At that time there was not 100 miles of railroads in the State; to-day we have thousands of miles, and the increase in this interest is on of the greatest demands before us for a new Constitution. It stands admitted that our present Constitution is inadequate for the present condition of public affairs; the great masses of the people, irrespective of party say so, and a majority of the people at the last election, if they made any expression at all, so said. I refer to the vote upon the amendments proposed to the Constitution, that were submitted to a vote of the people. The prosperity and advancement of the State has outlived this organic law. I know there are men in both, parties who oppose a Constitutional Convention. Democrats say it will not do to call a Constitutional Convention, because the Republicans will elect a majority of its members; and Republicans say it will not do to call a Convention because the Democrats will elect a majority of its members. I rise and thank God in my feebleness I am able to rise above such controversies as that. The man in a Constitutional Convention who would swerve his action or conduct in favor of one political party or another is not worthy a seat in such a body, and would disgrace the constituency he represents. [Applause.] If I supposed that a call for a Constitutional Convention would bring together a set of men that would make the body a cesspool of party and party politics, I would stand by the old Constitution until there was a prospect for a more enlightened public sentiment.
It is said the present Constitution will supply all present wants, with the amendments now pending. Let us see. If there are such amendments now pending, I am for their ratification and for no Convention; but if there are amendments pending, and if their ratification will not supply present wants, I am for a Convention. Let us see: This amendment, numbered 1, after fixing certain qualifications for voting, provides that the voter "shall have resided in the Township sixty days, and in the Ward or Precinct thirty days immediately preceding said election." I confess that is a good proposition. I believe the law of Indiana is wrong that requires no period of residence in a Precinct as a preceding condition to the right to vote. I think, as has been said by men of all parties, that it opens a wide door to dishonest persons who seek to cast a vote, not having a right to. I am sorry we have lived under a Constitution so long that has not made it incumbent upon the Legislature to require reasonable residence as a precedent condition to the exercise of the right of the elective franchise. Some period of residence ought to be fixed. But it contains another provision, viz: "If he shall have been duly registered according to law." If this amendment is passed, no person can vote unless duly registered. Amendment No. 3, in speaking of what the Legislature shall do, says: "And shall also provide for the registration of all persons entitled to vote." What kind of a registry law? It ought tobe left to the discretion of the Legislature, but it is not. It is incomplete, and thus it is, if this amendment is adopted, no person can vote unless registered, and it makes it the absolute duty incumbent upon the Legislature to pass a registry law. It does not leave it a matter discretionary with the Legislature, and when member of that body holds up his hand and takes his oath that he will obey the Constitution, if such an amendment were passed, he swears that he will vote for a law registry law. A registry law must be passed, whether it be such an one as pleases the people or not, lest the Constitution will be disobeyed by the Legislature. The Constitution furnishes no advice or instruction as to the scope or character of a registry law. It seems to me this amendment is wrong, not because it prescribes a period of residence, but because it takes away from the people's representatives the choice as to whether it is better that we have a registry law or not. Conditions change, society changes, and while to-day it might be better to have a registry law, a few years hence it might not be; but as the case stands I believe there is no necessity and never will be or a registry law. It is said that a registry law will protect the purity of the ballot-box. I deny it; and the history of elections bear out the ruth of the statement that the greatest frauds and crimes have been perpetrated where a registry law has been in full an complete force. It is a bad instrument in the hands of dishonest men to defeat the will of th people at the ballot-box. The best way is to reduce the number of voters per Precinct. Make the voting Precinct so small that the leaders of the respective parties can ascertain who are and who are not lawful residents of the Precinct. Then the vote can be counted out without requiring the Board to sit up all night when honest men go to sleep and the dishonest ones stay awake to perpetrate wrong.
Amendment Nos. 2 and 4 conform to the Constitution of the United States upon the subject suffrage.
Amendment No. 3 provides that "all general elections shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, but Township elections may be held at such times as may provided by law. Provided that the General Assembly may provide by law for the election of all Judges of Courts of general and appellate jurisdiction by an election to be held for such officers only, at which time no other officers shall be voted for," and shall also provide for the registration of all persons entitled to vote. The defense that is made for that amendment is it will do away with the October elections, and save the people $100,000 every other year by having the October and November elections held the same day. If that amendment will do that, it can properly be argued in its favor, and is a matter worthy of consideration. But that amendment makes provision for holding other elections at other and different times. It divorces elections for the judiciary entirely from the elections for other officers, and therefore it will be left for Legislative expression whether this proposed economy will really be economy or not.
No. 5 grades, fees and salaries according to population and necessary service required. Amendment No. 5 is well enough, I would approve that proposition. Great abuses are growing and have been growing for a long time in the charging of fees by County as well as other officials. A system of construction has grown up in the discharge of official duties that is monstrous, and deserves that the knife of the Legislature should be laid at its throat at once.
No. 6 gives the General Assembly power establish Courts other than the Supreme and Circuit Courts. Well enough.
No. 9 limits political or municipal corporations ever becoming liable to an amount in the aggregate exceeding 2 per centum on the value of taxable property within the corporation, except in cases of war, etc.
These are the only changes proposed by these amendments, and the question is, do they supply all the wants, or do they furnish all the relief the people need from the great and pending necessity of a change in the organic law?
Let me recapitulate:
Nos. 1 and 3 fix a period of residence for voting and provide for a registry law.
No. 3 also provides that general elections shall be held in November, except, etc.
No. 5. General Assembly may establish Courts other than the Supreme and Circuit Courts.
No. 9 limits the taxing power of corporations to 2 per centum upen the property.
These are the only reforms. Are these the only reforms needed? I shall not stop now to discuss whether they are or not. The question I ask the Senate to consider is: Can these amend- page: 127[View Page 127] ments be submitted to the people by this Legislature for their ratification? In other words: Are these amendments pending, or are they not?
The Constitution provides, Article 16, Section 1, page 56. I think the terms of this article and section of the Constitution were complied with respecting these amendments. First, these amendments were proposed by the Legislature of 1877. They were then submitted to the Legislature of 1879. That body was composed entirely of a new House of Representatives, and one-half of the Senate were also new members, and these amendments passed that body, having received a Constitutional majority of each House. They passed two Legislatures, and were voted upon by the people, the General Assembly in obedience to the Constitution having submitted them to the voice of the constitutional voters. Does the Constitution say anything more can be done? The Constitution says when this is done, after these amendments have been ratified by a majority of said electors, such amendment or amendments shall become part and parcel of the Constitution. What is the logical sequence? If they fail of ratification then they fail to become part and parcel of the Constitution. The Constitution makes no provision for their disposition in case of their failure. It is well known that these amendments have been declared to have failed by reason of a decision on of the Supreme Court. I concede it was first supposed by the great body of the people that these amendments had been adopted aud become part and parcel of the Constitution, but a case went up to the Supreme Court, and out of that decision a question has arisen whether this Legislature can re-submit these amendments. The case was this; Swift was indicted because he as an Inspector of Elections refused to receive the vote of one Kelso, because Kelso, according to the provisions of Amendment No. 1 was not entitled to vote. The question was, had that amendment been adopted ? If it had, Swift was innocent. If it had not, he was guilty.
The Supreme Court has decided that these amendments were not adopted. I hear that some persons say that the constitutional amendments voted upon last April can be resubmitted to the people. The Constitution has made no provision by which any human power can vitalize and breathe new breath of life into any constitutional amendments that have been lost. I shall not stop to argue that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the question; that is conceded here and everywhere. When you attempt to amend the Constitution you must follow strictly not only the letter but the spirit of the Constitution. The point has been ably stated and completely sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court in this very case. Amendatory processes must be pursued according to the restriction that the Constitution has provided upon that subject. If I am in doubt about this question, I am also in doubt with a very able and distinguished lawyer of the State of Indiana, and a man for whose abilities I have a most profound regard and the greatest respect. On the 20th day of August last, General Harrison, the Senator elect, and elected by the favor of representatives of the real Republican party of Indiana-made a speech at Terre Haute, which was said to open the campaign for his party, and devoted almost exclusively to a history of these amendments and to the subject of amending the Constitution of Indiana, and in that speech General Harrison said, and I think very truly and correctly said:
"The Supreme Court and Mr. Hendricks have both attempted to soothe the disappointment of the people by suggesting that we may do this work over again. Judge Biddle suggests that the amendments might be re-submitted under a law to be enacted by the next Legislature. I do not think so. The amendments have been once submitted to the people, and have been voted upon. If they have not been adopted they have been rejected; and if they have been rejected the movement must be started de novo, and the proposed amendments pass through two successive Legislatures before they can be brought to the vote of the people."
These are the words of a great lawyer, who has stated the proposition with absolute clearness and unerring judgment, and has pointed out the only certain and lawful way of giving these amendments life again.
I have not been able to discuss a this question of the right of the Legislature to resubmit these amendments a I would like to, but I hope Senators will consider well before they make up their judgment in taking the important step of defeating the desires of the people and the demands for a change in the organic law, and take the uncertainty of the chances of resubmitting the amendments.
But suppose the amendments referred to should be adopted, will they supply the wants and necessities of the occasion? I think they will not.
One matter of great embarrassment that would arise is, that officers elected pursuant to elections provided for in the amendments would remain out of office two years after their election.
That may seem not to be a matter of great concern, but it seems to me the sooner a man is put to work after calling him to an official position the better.
There is another thing which seems to me to be a very great and ought to be a controlling reason why a Constitutional Convention should be held instead of attempting to patch up the present Constitution by the process of amendments. When our present Constitution was adopted there was not 100 miles of finished railroads in Indiana. Now the railroad interest is paramount to any business enterprise. The present Constitution places no limitation upon corporations of any kind, character or description. To-day it is left entirely to legislative discretion as to what at shall be the powers and rights and privileges of foreign corporations in order to avail themselves of Indiana prosperity or to entitle them to transact business within the limits of the State. There is no power, except that feeble power lodged in the uncertainty of legislative conduct, that prevents foreign corporations from uniting all the railroad interests of the State in one corporation and operating it by a single head. Such a vast power as that is not only dangerous, but subversive of the public good and the right of foreign corporations to exercise this great power over Indiana's privileges and Indiana's industries, in my judgment, ought not to be left hanging upon the slender thread of legislative pleasure. The people ought to provide by placing it in the Constitution that such unlimited consolidation should have no lodgment in Indiana.
There is nothing that forbids foreign corporations from buying up and holding against resident citizens, all the unoccupied land of the State, except legislative law. For one, I believe that the homesteads of Indiana people ought to be safely secured by a provision in the State Constitution, and not left to the uncertainty of the Legislature, for fear the Representatives of the people may, at some time decide that the State of Indiana shall be made an asylum fox foreign corporations who may come here to eat and sap up the labor of Indiana people. The power has become so great that I am afraid to trust myself much less the rest of you. [Laughter].
There are some other questions that the Legislature of Indiana, sooner or later, will have to meet, and they may just as well be met now as at any other time. We hear it knocking at our doors, and have heard for some years, that there should be a radical change in reference to the management of the liquor business in the State of Indiana.
As Members of the Legislature, we can not and ought not to put off the responsibility of meeting page: 128[View Page 128] hat question any longer. If it were not for the fact that it is a doubtful question whether these amendments are pending or not, there would to-day be upon the files of the Senate a proposition to submit to a vote of the people a proposition by way of amendment to the Constitution to exclude from the limits of the State the right to deal in spirituous liquors as a beverage. In my judgment, the question is of such high importance and of such imperative necessity that the great body holding that view have a right to be heard in a Constitutional Convention as to whether the people of the State of Indiana are with them or are not with them.
And I want to ask my Republican brothers on what ground they stand upon this question? They are in honor bound to stand by and with the temperance people. During the last campaign we were told that Governor Porter was par excellence a temperance man-the embodiment of temperance and morality-and he and his party owe his election to the 30,000 temperance voters of Indiana. A temperance journal published an article, which was published throughout the State, declaring Franklin Landers was a drunkard,and his administration would be anti-temperance. I believed it false then, and I know it is false now, yet the Republican party, patting these people on the back, told them: "Your interest will be safe in the election of Porter and the success of the Republican ticket," and now I want to know whether the Republican party will vote down a proposition made by a Democrat to give these people a tribunal when a hearing is worth something. You may baffle them by telling them these amendments are now pending, but by and by they will find out they are being misled.
There is another question we can not avoid much longer--indeed it is upon us now, and it is a question of more importance, perhaps, than we are inclined to think; and that is the question as to the right to vote. There is now a bill upon the files of the Senate to allow the women of the State to vote for Presidential Electors. You can not evade voting for that bill by saying it is unconstitutional, because it is not. The Legislature of the State is above the Constitution of Indiana upon the subject of the appointment of Presidential Electors. The Constitution of the United States is paramount law upon that subject, and no Constitution of any State can limit or abridge the right and power of any other State Legislature concerning Presidential Electors. That was one of the most troublesome questions that came before the Convention that made the Constitution of the United States. It was proposed that the be elected by the people; that was objected to. It was proposed that they be appointed by the Governors of the several States; that was objected to. It was proposed that they be appointed by te judiciary; that was objected to.
And finally this proposition as agreed upon.
Article 2, Section 1, Constitution of the United States, says: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years; and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"
The Constitution of the United States places no other limit upon the will of the Legislature when it proceeds to discharge the important duty of the appointing Presidential Electors. The State may say that men of fifty years and upward only may vote for Presidential Electors.
The State may say that women only may make appointments, or that minors only may make them. It resides within the Legislature's will and judgment alone how these appointments shall be made. Therefore, when you refuse to vote for the bill now pending to confer upon women in the State, of twenty-one years and upward the right to participate in the appointment of Presidential Electors, you do so because you believe they ought not to, and not because you believe there is anything in the fundamental law that prevents them from doing it.
We have been told by the Republican party that it is the party par excellence of morality- the party of high moral cultivation and a great intellectual accomplishment. [Laughter.] Of course: we all know if there is any class of citizens in the tate of Indiana that more than all others have attained a high state of perfection in refinement, culture, morality, religion and all that goes to make up goodness and greatness, it is the women of the State.
Are the Republicans afraid for them to vote for fear that us rough, untutored, unrefined and uneducated Democrats would capture them? [Laughter.] And now if the ladies of this State are intellectual enough and sufficiently well versed in the history of the country to participate in the making of a President, may they not vote for a Township Trustee or a Constable as well? This is a question the responsibility of deciding by the Legislature can not be postponed much longer. I am in favor of a Convention which shall submit the question distinctly to the voting population of Indiana as to whether or not women shall or shall not be permitted to vote in this State; and I for one, say that I have no objection to their voting. I lived in a Western Territory once where they enjoyed the right of suffrage, and I saw women vote. I saw the good influence it had upon election day. It was worth more than an army of policemen. It was a peaceable, orderly, quiet and well-behaved election; and if you will allow Democratic and Republican ladies vote, if us Democrats don't behave ourselves on election days, their presence will be a source of great pacification to say the least.
I have, in my feeble condition, referred to some of the reasons which induced me to present for the consideration of the General Assembly this bill, proposing to call a Constitutional Convention and thank the Senate for its patience in bearing with me while speaksng at such a great disadvantage.
Mr. GRUBBS contended that a Constitutional Convention is not demanded by the people; it is not demanded by any defects of our present Constitution, not more easily remedied, nor is it demanded by any great evils, which can not be borne until we can remedy them by the process of amendment prescribe by the Constitution itself, which provides a careful and practicable method of making our Constitution conform to the progress of our State. Then a Constitutional Convention is too expensive, following so soon after our hard times, when the people are demanding economy. Constitutional Conventions are dangerous experiments. We live in a radical age, and if a radical organic law should be framed it would be defeated by the people, and we would have all the expense for nothing.
Referring to the bill before the Senate [H. R. 16] for a re-submission of the Constitutional Amendments to the people, he insis ed it is clearly within the power, and it is the duty of this General Assembly to re-submit the amendments for ratification or rejection. He contended that an amendment once submitted and voted for in one form of law can not be again submitted. the power of the Legislature and the people, having been exercised, is exhausted, and the amendment is either ratified or rejected. It ratified, it becomes a part of the organic law; if rejected, it is dead forevermore, and can be neither again submitted or voted for constitutionally.
He also contended that an amendment can not be either ratified or rejected by a submission or a page: 129[View Page 129] vote not in one form of law. Such a submission and such a vote would be a nullity, like the decision of a Court without jurisdiction, the only effect would be to leave the matter just where it was. It would not be a constitutional or legal submission, and the vote of the Electors would be valueless; it would operate neither to ratify nor reject.
Now, what is the status of these amendments? They have been proposed to and agreed to by two successive General Assemblies. An attempted submission to the electors was made, under which the people showed their approbation of them. But the Supreme Court have held, substantially, that they were not ratified. They also held that they were not rejected. They have held that the law under which they were attempted to be submitted provided no means by which the Court was enabled to determine whether or not a majority of the Electors had voted for them; that it gave no basis for a decision on that point. A Court could not, under that law and the election amendment, say whether the amendments had been ratified or rejected. Such a vote, they held, decided nothing--was a nullity, and leaves the amendments unimpaired.
Mr. CHAPMAN said:
I shall vote for the bill now pending, but shall do so with a considerable degree of reluctance. I shall so vote because I am fully impressed with importance of incorporating into the Constitution the features covered by the amendments--if it has not already been done by the legal ratification of such amendments. I believe the substantial welfare of the people of this State will be greatly promoted by the amendments and by such legislation as they authorize. They open the way to greater purity in elections by surrounding the ballot-box with needed safeguards and the enforcement of a great saving to the people in the way of retrenchment in the expense of administering public affairs. It was a public misfortune--a calamity--when the Supreme Court decided or raised a doubt as to whether the amendments had been ratified by the electors of the State. I will, therefore, lay aside my doubts as to the propriety of this measure of re-submission, although they are grave ones and such as I thought for a time I would not lay aside, and will trust that the fears I have entertained as to its becoming a bad precedent will never be realized.
I can not however, Mr. President, in justice to myself, refrain from stating some of the reasons fr such reluctance. I do not do so for the purpose, or in the expectation, of impressing the correctness of my views on the Senate, but as an explanation of the condition of mind in which I find myself. I am, then, Mr. President, reluctant in my support of the measure for re-submission for the following, among other reasons:
- First Item
- Because the amendments were legally submitted to the electors of the State by the General Assembly of 1879, under the act of March 10, 1879, so that ratification or rejection followed as a necessary result.
- Second Item
- Because at the election which took place on the 5th of April, 1880, under said act of the General Assembly, each one of said amendments was ratified by a majority of the electors of the State.
- Third Item
- Because the fact of such ratification has been proclaimed by the political power of the Government--i. e., by the Governor-pursuant to the direction of the General Assembly, and based upon the evidence prescribed by the General Assembly, which proclamation is conclusive proof of such fact binding upon every Department of the Government.
- Fourth Item
- Because the decision of the Supreme Court--with two Judges dissenting--in the case of the State vs. Swift, by Indiana, 505, only assumes to decide that one of the amendments was not ratified; and in making such a decision the Supreme Court usurped jurisdiction, and its judgment is void.
- Fifth Item
- Because the passage of an act for re-submission seems to give legislative indorsement to the judicial usurpation, and to the following decision of a majority of the Bench, and thereby to approve what, if it should become a precedent for judicial rulings, is fraught with great danger to republican institutions.
The first proposition which I maintain, is that the amendments were legally submitted by the General Assembly of 1879, and that their ratification or rejection followed therefrom as a necessary result. That they were legally submitted to the electors, is admitted by the Supreme Court in the case referred to. In the majority opinion it is said, 'We perceive no irregularity in the pro-proposal of the amendments for ratification." There being no irregularity in the proposal or submission, and the amendments having been voted upon under such submission by the electors, they either received enough votes to ratify them or they did not receive enough and were thereby rejected. And this is true, no matter what standard is adopted for the purpose of testing whether the affirmative vote was a legal majority or not. If they were ratified they thereby became a part of the Constitution which the Supreme Court, and the Judges thereof, are bound to uphold and support. If they were not ratified, they were thereby killed beyond the power of resurrection.
The second proposition which I maintain is that each of the amendments was ratified by a legal majority of the electors of the State.
There is no doubt that a proposed amendment to the Constitution must be submitted to the electors of the State, and that a majority of the electors must ratify the same before it becomes part of the Constitution, for the Constitution says so. But who are the electors of the State as regards any such submission, and how shall the majority be ascertained? When any proposition is submitted to the electors of the State, whether it be a proposed amendment to the Constitution or the filling of an office, those persons who, having the qualifications of a voter, choose or elect to vote upon such proposition are the electors of the State as regards such proposition. Those persons who, having the qualifications of a voter, do not choose or elect to vote are not electors so far as regards that proposition.
The only available and proper test as to the electors of the State, or the persons entitled to vote, is the result of an election as shown by the ballot-box; provided always, it is a fair election, with an equal opportunity for all to participate. This is the rule laid down by McCrary in his American Law of Elections, Section 183. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of County of Cass vs. Johnston (5 Otto, 360), says: "All qualified voters who absent themselves from an election duty called are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting, unless the law providing for the election otherwise declares. Any other rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and ought not be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed." There is not such will expressed in the section of the Constitution upon the subject of amendments, and the inconvenience which must always result from such a rule is boldly presented in the matter we now have under review.
The majority of the Supreme Bench, in its search for some other a standard than the number of votes cast, by which determine the question whether a majority ratified the amendment under consideration in the case of the State vs. Swift, seem to have been at a loss to find one to which the three Judges constituting the majority would give unqualified approval. The Judge who wrote the opinion, speaking for himself only, held that it requires a majority of the electors of the State-meaning by such expression all persons qualified to vote--to ratify a proposed amendment. The three held--as the opinion of the Court--that "it required at least a majority of all page: 130[View Page 130] the votes cast at the same election," showing, by this expression used, that they entertained doubt whether the standard should that stated, or something different and larger. Now, I submit, that a standard fact by which other facts are to be gauged or measured, must be exactly ascertainable, and a fact which can not be ascertained with exactness can not be ascertained with exactness can not be made a standard. This will prove that the standard adopted by Judge Biddle for as certaining whether a majority has ratified an amendment or not, is not and can be no standard, for he admits it is impossible to determine how many persons qualified to vote are in the State on any given day. When it is remembered in this connection, that under our system of Government a majority of one is just as potent to adopt a measure requiring a majority as a majority of 1,000 with as complete and full right to be ascertained and recognized, it will be apparent that Judge Biddle's conclusion fallacious.
The statement that it requires a majority of all "the votes cast at the same election," in order to ratify amendment, is true enough, if the term election is restricted to its correct meaning. Much of confusion which has arisen seems to have grown out of taking the word election to mean the election day, or the election occasion. The Supreme Court, in the opinion I have referred to, goes so far in this direction as to designate the election upon the proposition to amend the Constitution and the election for Township officers as "the same election," only because they took place on the same day, at the same places, and the votes were received and recorded by the same officers. This is a clear mistake. Upon each proposition submitted on any election day the voters make an election, or choice, and the election as to each proposition is separate an distinct from each other proposition. Seven proposed amendment to the Constitution were submitted to the voters on the fifth day of April, 1880, and as to each one of those amendments there was an election by the voters as to whether it should be ratified or not. Just as when, at a general election, there are several persons named as candidates for the office of Governor, and several persons as candidates for the office of Lieutenant Governor, and the voters elect which one they severally choose shall be Governor, and which one they severally choose shall be Lieutenant Governor. There is one election for Governor, and another election for Lieutenant Governor. Each standing distinct from the other and in way dependent upon it.
Keeping this distinction in view, the rule which a the majority of the Supreme Bench hesitatingly laid down is correct. When at the election as to whether the proposed amendment No. 1 should become a part of the Constitution, there were cast 164,479 for, and 152,368 against such proposition, it was ratified, because it received a majority of 17,116 of all the votes cast at that election--of all the persons in the State having the qualifications of voters who were electors at that election.
No clearer demonstration Mr. President, could be furnished of the unsoundness of the conclusion reached by the majority of the Supreme Bench than that which the opinion itself presents. That conclusion is grounded upon violent presumptions of fact against the validity of the election, which are the voluntary product of the judicial imagination. They say it must be presumed that "other votes were cast" on the election day "than those for or against the amendment," meaning thereby that voters voted who did not vote for or against that amendment. They had no evidence of this fact, nor evidence from which such fact could be inferred. The same is true of their presumption that some votes were cast both "yes" and "no," and were not, therefore counted. Being forced in limine to admit in effect that the defendant in a criminal suit can not,by his admissions,determine substantially the question of the ratification or rejection of a Constitutional Amendment they say. (Read from page 509, 69 Ind.) But the Supreme Court of the United States in treating of the same question says (7 Howard, p. 9): This illustrates, and I think, the difference between mental processes of a Court solicitous only to reach a right judgement, and one determined to reach a predetermined judgment.
The third and fourth propositions which I have stated are to the effect that the political power of the Government has proclaimed the amendments adopted, which is conclusive proof of such fact binding upon all Courts, and that is therefore the decision of the Supreme Court in the State vs. Swift is void a to the question of a ratification.
The political power of he Government is vested in the legislative and in the executive departments. Of these departments of the legislative is superior to the executive, because it stands nearest to and more closely represents the people from whom all governmental power springs. and who are the creators of Constitution and Government.
The act of 1879, at Section 5, provides as follows, viz: [Reads.]
The proclamation provided for is the declaration of the political power, both the legislative and executive departments. It may be said properly to be the proclamation of the legislative department through the Executive Department. The proclamation provided for in the statute is as emphatically an announcement of the ratification or rejection of an amendment as if it should announce in terms that an amendment was ratified or rejected . Where a proposition submitted to the voters involves only an affirmative and a negative vote, the announcement of the vote makes known with absolute certainty whether it is carried or defeated. To supplement such an announcement with the statement that the proposition has been carried or defeated, would be to state a self-evident fact. I think, therefore, Mr. President, that the political power of the Government has proclaimed the amendments to have been adopted.
If, however any more precise proclamation of the result of the submission is needed, it is for the political power of the State Government to make such proclamation. This General Assembly, Mr. President might, and should, in my opinion instead of re-submitting the amendments,and thereby accepting and approving the fallacious decision of a Court which had no jurisdiction of the question decided, and there accepting a precedent which may be fraught with more evil than any of us may imagine, proclaim by joint resolution or otherwise that the amendments have been adopted. Then this General Assembly should go forward and enact the necessary legislation to make the amendments effective. I am not a prophet, Mr. President, but I would hazard the prediction that if such a course was pursued the work would not be lost, and neither would the fear of some that, in such case, the election of last October would fall to the ground ever be realized. No one can justly say It is too late to make such a proclamation, unless he indorses the decision of the Supreme Court that it requires at least a majority of the persons who may vote on the election day for any and all propositions which may chance to be submitted to the voters on that day, if not, indeed, a majority of all persons in the State on such day who might have voted if they only would in order to ratify an amendment if such doctrine is not sound, then the amendments were ratified, and by that act become a part of the Constitution, and the only office of the proclamation is to serve as conclusive evidence of that fact.
The determination of the question whether a Constitution or an amendment thereto has been ratified by the people rests exclusively with the page: 131[View Page 131] political department of Government. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Luther vs. Borden (7 Howard, 1), says:
[Reads from page 7.]
In the same opinion the Court further says:
[Reads from page 14.]
The the Supreme Court of Indian had no jurisdiction to sit in judgement upon the question whether amendments now under consideration had been ratified or not is further demonstrated by the provisions of the State Constitution and of the act of 1879.
Article 3 of the Constitution provides:
Section 4 and 8 of Article 7 read as follows:
These provisions establish that the jurisdiction of the Court is subject to the regulations and restrictions which the General Assembly may prescribe. They also establish that when duties are charged upon the officers in one department the officers of another department can not exercise such functions.
The act of 1879 conferred the power and placed the duty of, determining and deciding all the facts relative to the submission of the amendments upon:
- First Item
- The Clerks of the Circuit Courts.
- Second Item
- The Secretary of State.
- Third Item
- The Governor of the State,
And upon them alone.
Therefore, none of this power or duty could under the State Constitution, be asserted or discharged by the judiciary.
Entertaining these views in regard to the decision, it follows, as a matter of course, that I should feel reluctant in contributing toward giving a legislative indorsement to it.
Another reason why I have been slow in giving my support to the proposition to resubmit the amendments is, that I doubt the power of this General Assembly to do so legally. It seems to me that the terms of Section 1 of Article 16 of the Constitution, make it the duty of the General Assembly last voting in favor of proposed amendments to provide for the resubmission. And that when the effect of any other interpretation than that which makes it the exclusive duty of such General Assembly is considered, such interpretation must prevail. But I do not now propose to discuss this proposition. The majority of the Supreme Bench in the case I have referred to suggest a resubmission as a sort of northwest passed by which the Court might escape from the disagreeable and unfortunate consequences which would necessarily follow the decision they rendered. In view of the fact that the people will be the chief suffers from such consequences, I am disposed to open such a passage, in the hope the Supreme Court will pass through and avert the disaster with which it has threatened the public.
Mr. BELL in consideration of the discussion already had, and the lateness of the hour admonishing that he should not take up the time of the Senate now, he would glad to present his views at some future time. He moved that the further consideration of this matter be postponed till 2 o'clock on Monday, to be resumed at that time as the special order.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate then adjourned.


text:
Growing a Greener World
Growing a Greener World | About Season One -...
Episode 12: Little Pests, Big Problems? - The...
Well if it's not the biggest pest of all (deer), it's the little ones that can add up in a big way. But with little to... 03:53
Episode 10: Oh Deer! - The Twenty-five Dollar...
And the challenges keep coming! In this episode, the rain has finally stopped, just in time for the next and even... 03:48
Episode 11: Keeping Deer at Bay When Joe's Away...
Now that Joe has found a cheap (free) deer repellent that works when reapplied daily, what does he do to keep them... 02:40
Episode 9: Smoking Grass is good for your...
The Twenty-five Dollar Organic Victory Garden is planted. But as the rains continue to fall, Joe turns to... 03:04
- Watch more video from this program »
Information For Teachers
- Grade Levels
- Curricular Areas
- Science & Technology
- Series Length
- 107 episodes
- Average Episode Length
- 26 minutes
- Record Rights
- Record and retain for 1 yearfrom each broadcast. No duplication allowed.
- Visit the Website for Teacher Resources
- http://www.growingagreenerworl...
Visit the IPTV Education website to access timely, relevant resources for your classroom.
Series Description: GROWING A GREENER WORLD blends the latest trends in eco-friendly living with traditional gardening know-how. The series highlights the diverse people, organizations and events that seek to raise environmental awareness and encourage better stewardship of the planet. GROWING A GREENER WORLD combines the expertise and engaging styles of veteran television host and nationally recognized authority on gardening and sustainability, Joe Lamp'l (a.k.a. joe gardener), with the "Most Watched Gardening Personality on the Web," Garden GirlPatti Moreno. Each episode contains one compelling feature story and one how-to segment for growing your own food, followed by a four-minute segment with chef Nathan Lyon (A Lyon in the Kitchen) who uses fresh-from-the-garden fruit, vegetables or herbs to create simple and delicious dishes. Lyon, a finalist for the 2006 The Next Food Network Star, believes the fresher the ingredients, the better the food.
All Upcoming Episodes
Four Young Urban Farmers & Greenhouse Bus (Durham, NC, Boston, Seattle) (#423)
Four young urban farmers teach urban school children about organic gardening and sustainable living. [26 minutes]
- Sat, December 28, 12:30 PM on IPTV
Common Ground Fair (Unity, ME) (#424)
A long-running New England fair that celebrates organic farming and rural living is visited. [26 minutes]
- Sat, January 4, 12:30 PM on IPTV
The Four Seasons Garden (Harborside, ME) (#425)
In Maine, Eliot Coleman discusses growing vegetables year round in even the coldest climates. [26 minutes]
- Sat, January 11, 12:30 PM on IPTV
Winter Gardening: (Harborside, ME) (#426)
The start of the next gardening season begins with making good decisions much earlier. [26 minutes]
- Sat, January 18, 12:30 PM on IPTV
Greenhouse School (New York) (#401)
A public school in New York City uses a rooftop greenhouse to teach a lesson in sustainability. [26 minutes]
- Sat, January 25, 12:30 PM on IPTV
Past Episodes
These episodes of Growing a Greener World aired in the last few months on Iowa Public Television.
- Mobile Truck Farms (Phil. PA, TX, NC) (#422)
- Growing More Power: (Milwaukee, WI) (#421)
- Victory Garden Movement - The Peterson Project (Chicago) (#420)
- Garden Myths 2.0 (Atlanta, GA) (#419)
- In The Garden with Margaret Roach (NY) (#418)
- Restaurant Farms (GA, WA, CA) (#417)
- Restaurant Farms: (Atlanta, GA) (#416)
- Greenhouses for Any Budget (Atlanta, VA) (#415)
- Recycling Horticulture Waste - Making Better Choices One Pot at a Time (#113)
- Backyard Beekeeping (Seattle, Atlanta) (#414)
- Bountiful Harvest (Atlanta, Birmingham, AL) (#413)
- Independent Garden Centers (TX, GA, NC, PA) (#412)
- Moss Gardens (Raleigh, NC) (#411)
- Weedless Gardening (NY) (#410)
- Rooftop Farming (NYC) (#409)
- Waterwise Gardening (San Diego, CA) (#408)
- Organic Lawn Care (Potomac, MD) (#407)
- Setting Up Your Garden: (Atlanta, GA) (#406)
- Trees (Atlanta, Georgia) (#405)
- Aquaponics (Oakland, California & Milwaukee) (#404)
- Organic Pest Control (Philadelphia, PA) (#403)


text:
Online Store
The Official Online RBS 6 Nations Store is open. The store has everything you need to get behind your team during the RBS 6 Nations, plus the store is now fully stocked with a much wider range of rugby merchandise.
It was a different game on Sunday with Ireland dominating territory and possession only for the boot of Greig Laidlaw to steer Scotland to victory and maintain their unlikely quest to win a first-ever Six Nations crown and first title since they won the old Five Nations in 1999.
But while Scotland rejoiced in the victory, Brown warned improvements would be needed if Scotland are going to have any chance of upsetting a resurgent Wales team at Murrayfield next month.
"We sat down all week and we thought of a plan and we didn't really do it out there," conceded Brown.
"But as a side we are really, really happy to get the win, but we know we need to improve as if we play like that against Wales we will lose that game.
"To be fair to them they put us under a lot of pressure but in saying that some of our defence wasn't up to standard so we sat down and spoke about that at half time and were keen to get our spacing right.
"The skills weren't right but having said that the guts and fight we showed was very good."


text:
Touro Law Center is part of the
Touro College
Gift Giving
TLC Web
TLC Email
follow us
About Touro Law
Dean's Message
Faculty & Administration
Consumer Information
Community Services
Quick Facts
Contact Us
Touro Law Experience
Juris Doctor
Master of Laws (LL.M.)
International Student
Non-Matriculating Students
Veterans Resources
Tuition and Fees
Financial Aid and Scholarships
Apply Online
Request Information
Recruiting Schedule
Open House
Juris Doctor
Dual Degree Programs
Master of Laws (LL.M.) Programs
Summer Programs
Institutes and Centers
Honor Societies
Academic Calendar
Schedule of Classes/Registration Materials
Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
Student Resources
Student Handbook/Code of Conduct
Office of Student Services
Academic Resources
Student Support Services
Student Government
Student Organizations
Alumni Connection
Information Technology
Academic Calendars
Schedule of Classes/Registration Materials
Exam Schedules
Dining Information
Alumni & Giving
Alumni Directory
Alumni of the Month Program
Alumni Association
Alumni Services
Alumni Publications
Gift Giving
Reunions & Events
Get Involved: Volunteer Opportunities
Career Services
Symplicity Job Listings
Resume, Cover Letter, Writing Sample, & Interview Tips
Judicial Clerkships
Public Service
CSO Library & Web Resources
Recruiting Programs
Law Graduate Fellowship Program
Alumni Success
For Employers
Our Staff
Law Library
Touro Law - Online Resources
About the Library
Catalogs, Publications & Collections
Faculty Library Resources
Student Library Resources
Public Service Initiatives
William Randolph Hearst Public Advocacy Center
Pro Bono Graduation Requirement
Student ProBono Projects
Loan Forgiveness
Student Organizations
Public Service Fellowships
Public Interest Lawyer in Residence
Our Director
News & Calendars
Events Calendar
Academic Calendar
Touro Law in the News
Schedule of Classes
Exam Schedules
Media Guide
Touro Times
Touro Times (prior to Jan. 2013)
Juris Doctor
J.D. Viewbook
First-Year Student
Requirements: U.S. Applicants
Requirements: Non U.S. Applicants
Application Procedure
Applicant Status Check
Dual Degree Programs
Transfer Student
Visiting Student
Dual Degree Student
J.D./M.B.A. LIU-Post
J.D./M.B.A. Dowling College
J.D./M.P.A. LIU-Post
J.D./M.S.W. SUNY, Stony Brook
Master of Laws (LL.M.)
Master of Laws (LL.M.)
Master of Laws (LL.M.) in U.S. Legal Studies
International Student
Maintaining F-1 Status
Optional Practical Training
Non-Matriculating Students
Veterans Resources
Tuition and Fees
Financial Aid and Scholarships
Institutional Scholarships, Grants & Fellowships
Public Interest Law Fellowship
Federal Aid
Federal Work Study Program
Federal Direct Student Loans
Private Loans/Alternative Loan Programs
Bar Study Loans
Loan Forgiveness Programs
Veterans Programs
Private Scholarships and Fellowships
Financial Aid Calendar
Forms and Worksheets
Apply Online
Request Information
Tuition & Financial Aid
Campus Visits
Student Life
Application Process
Program Facts
Transfer Students
International Students
Recruiting Schedule
Open House
Touro Law Welcomes Joe Walz as Assistant Director of Academic Development and Bar Programs
Posted On November 25, 2013
Touro Law Center Dean Patricia Salkin is pleased to announce that Joe Walz has been appointed as Assistan...
Read More
Touro Law Announces Carter DeLuca IBLT Entrepreneurship Assistance Fellow
Posted On November 20, 2013
Touro Law Center Dean Patricia Salkin announced the selection of third year student Ale...
Read More
Touro Law Opens First Law School Incubator on Long Island
Posted On November 13, 2013
Touro Law Center hosted a ribbon cutting at the Community Justice Center, the first law school incub...
Read More
See All
Contact Us
Touro Law Center
225 Eastview Drive/Room 301
Central Islip, NY 11722
Telephone: (631) 761-7010
Fax: (631) 761-7019
George Justice, Asst. Dean for Admissions
Susan Thompson, Director of Enrollment
Angela Nowicke, Assistant
Marie Giani, Assistant
Pat Kothe, Clerk
Applicant Status Check
If you are a first-year JD or a transfer applicant, you can
your application status online.
If you are an LL.M. applicant, please contact Office of Admissions at 631-761-7010 or
for your application status


text:
Check items to add to the cart or select all
Product Description
The Vibram Fivefingers Jaya Fosters Grace And Power In A Minimalist Design. Created Specifically For The Modern Fitness Enthusiast, The Stretch Nylon Upper And Padded Collar Comfortably Secure The Foot During Exercise.
The Athletic Upper Provides Coverage That Will Secure The Jaya On The Foot. The 5.5mm Eva Sole Makes The Jaya One Of The Lightest Models In Our Collection. Strategically Placed Vibram TC1 Performance Rubber Pads Provide Grip And Durability To This Unique Sole Design. The Jaya Can Be Worn For A Variety Of Indoor And Outdoor Fitness Activities Requiring Balance, Agility And Power.
Popular Uses: Fitness, Traveling, After Sport
-Upper - Stretch Polyamide
-Sole - 5.5mm Eva, 3.5mm Tc1 Inlays
-Footbed - Antimicrobial Microfiber
***Machine Washable. Air Dry.
Additional Information
Manufacturer | Vibram |
Suggested Retail | No |


text:
Appendectomy -- Open Surgery
Reasons for Procedure
Inflamed Appendix |
Copyright © Nucleus Medical Media, Inc. |
Possible Complications
- Bleeding
- Infection
- Damage to other organs
- Reaction to anesthesia
What to Expect
Prior to Procedure
- Physical exam
- Blood and urine tests
- Your doctor may need detailed pictures of your appendix. These can be made with:
- X-rays
- Ultrasound
- CT scan
Description of the Procedure
After Procedure
How Long Will It Take?
Will It Hurt?
Average Hospital Stay
Post-procedure Care
- You will be asked to get out of bed about six hours after surgery.
- If your appendix ruptured, drainage tubes will be removed after a few days.
- You may resume your normal diet as soon as possible.
- You may be given antibiotics to fight infection. Take all the medications ordered even if you start to feel better.
- Keep the incision area clean and dry.
- Ask your doctor about when it is safe to shower, bathe, or soak in water.
- Wash your hands before changing the dressing.
- Rest and take it easy for 1-2 weeks.
- Do not exercise or do heavy lifting for one or more weeks as directed by your doctor.
- Slowly increase activities as approved by your doctor.
- Be sure to follow your doctor's instructions.
Call Your Doctor
- Signs of infection, including fever and chills
- Redness, swelling, increasing pain, excessive bleeding, or discharge at the incision site
- Cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, or severe nausea or vomiting
- Increased abdominal pain
- Fainting or dizziness
- Passing blood in the stool
American College of Surgeons http://www.facs.org
National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology http://www.cag-acg.org
Canadian Family Physician http://www.cfp.ca
Appendicitis. EBSCO DynaMed website. Available at: http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed. Updated October 17, 2012. Accessed November 7, 2012.
Discharge instructions for an appendectomy. EBSCO Patient Education Reference Center website. Available at: http://www.ebscohost.com/pointOfCare/perc-about. Updated September 26, 2012. Accessed November 7, 2012.
Townsend C, Beauchamp DR, eds. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery. 17th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2003.
6/2/2011 DynaMed's Systematic Literature Surveillance https://dynamed.ebscohost.com: Mills E, Eyawo O, Lockhart I, Kelly S, Wu P, Ebbert JO. Smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2011;124(2):144-154.e8.


text:
The Penn Program for Mindfulness teaches you how to manage the stresses of life with powerful mindfulness-based tools. Our programs will teach you how to actively manage the range of challenges that you face in life while you learn to enhance well-being, improve relationships, and increase productivity. Based on the pioneering work of Jon Kabat-Zinn, we have adapted traditional mindfulness and mindfulness-based meditation techniques for use in our fast-paced culture.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com or 800-789-PENN (7366) for more information and to sign up for a program.
Learn More About our Programs
Stay Connected
Now you can find us on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. Follow us for events, news, videos and more.


text:
Timothy Busfield, Melissa Gilbert say 'I do'
This is third marriage for both actors
At Timothy Busfield and Melissa Gilbert's Wednesday wedding, the bride wore red.
Strapless red, to be exact.
The former "Little House on the Prairie" actress tied the knot with "thirtysomething's" Busfield in a private ceremony, Gilbert's rep told CNN. The couple held the joyous occasion at San Ysidro Ranch in Santa Barbara.
According to People, Gilbert, 48, and Busfield, 55, got engaged over the holidays.
Another source whispered to E! News that Busfield and Gilbert have known each other "for quite some time, as their paths have crossed off-and-on over the past 20 years."
This is the third marriage for both newlyweds. Busfield has three children from prior relationships, whereas Gilbert's a mom of two.
Copyright 2013 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
ORLANDO — Blountstown's winning formula was neutralized by Trenton on Friday. READ MORE
ORLANDO (AP) — Michael Frederick ran for two touchdowns as Hialeah Champagnat Catholic defeated Lakeland Victory Christian 14-7 in the Florida football Class 2A state championship. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY — Bozeman's Brandon Suttles remembers when he was a 5-foot freshman and the Bucks went 2-22. READ MORE
SAND HILLS — Vernon's Alex Brown and Austin Brown may be related, but they're far enough apart on the family tree that Coach Thomas Register said "they don't run into each other at family reunions." READ MORE
LYNN HAVEN — Mosley's Nat Dixon finished with a game-high 35 points, and Mosley pulled away for a 90-70 victory in a District 1-5A matchup. READ MORE
SPRINGFIELD — Rutherford has made prominent strides in girls basketball in recent seasons, and entered Thursday's District 1-5A game against visiting Choctawhatchee with a 5-3 record. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY BEACH — Trailing by two goals seemed to fuel Arnold's competitive fire Monday night. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY — Hunter Ginn's ability to place the ball in the back of the net is the perfect fit for Mosley's possession-centric system implemented by first-year coach Ryan Rogers. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY— Bay overcame an early deficit to surpass Rutherford 3-1 in a prep girls soccer match at Tommy Oliver Stadium on Thursday. READ MORE
BAYOU GEORGE — Let it be said the Mosley girls soccer team was superior to Arnold in terms of speed, technical skill and goal-scoring ability Thursday night. READ MORE
The following is a list of area athletes now playing college or professional football. Statistics and team records are through Nov. 30, unless noted. This is the final periscope of the season. READ MORE
The following is a list of area athletes now playing college or professional football. Statistics and team records are through Nov. 23, unless noted. READ MORE
The following is a list of area athletes now playing college or professional football. Statistics and team records are through Nov. 16, unless noted. READ MORE
GULF BREEZE — Gulf Breeze Coach Waynn Sellers has been preaching the importance of the rally point to his team all season. READ MORE
LYNN HAVEN — The regional semifinals have not been kind to Mosley's volleyball program in recent years. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY BEACH — Arnold's gymnasium felt like a mausoleum for more than a quarter in the Marlins' boys basketball game against Freeport on Thursday. READ MORE
LYNN HAVEN — Choctawhatchee's 64-62 District 1-5A boys basketball win over Mosley Tuesday night basically came down to two possessions. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY — Just before he stepped onto the court at the Halifax All-Star Classic on Saturday afternoon, Rutherford standout Jai Jencks had a message for his father. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY — Taliah Moore was officially named MVP of the Halifax All-Star Classic girls game Saturday. However, the basketball she earned as an award could have been split into thirds. READ MORE
Most high school baseball coaches in Bay County stop short of giving a blanket approval of summer travel ball teams helping stock their programs with more experienced players. READ MORE
It nearly is impossible to dilute the travel ball baseball experience into one blanket statement. While certainly there are many organizations that offer boys an opportunity to play at high level as well as a chance for more games and travel to tournaments in the region, not all have the same goals. READ MORE
PANAMA CITY — Curstin Taylor's college future appears to be locked in. READ MORE
LYNN HAVEN — Smiles were easy to find at Mosley High School on Wednesday. READ MORE