River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1882-11-16

itOry -Jndge Hayes of
the Davenport District Court
Tells why the Instrument is no part
OF the Law.
DAVENPORT, Iowa, Nov. 8.-The dis
trict court was crowded with lawyers
and spectators this morning, anxious
to hear the long-expected decision in
the famous test trial of The prohibitory
amendment to the constituti on of the
State. The case is entitled Koehler &
LANCE VS.. John Hill, and the particu-
lars OF the claims and specifications
were telegraphed when the
petition was filed asst August
Koehler & LANCE, firm of Brewers,
sue John Hill, q saloonkeeper for $106
for beer delivered since Aug. l. Hill
refused payment on the ground that,
under the new amendment of the con-
stitution, brewing is an Illegal business
in Iowa. Koehler & Lang filed cross
petition claiming that the amendment
is illegal, null and void, through failnre
to comply with sill the requirements of
the amendment. Judge Hayes in his
decision this morning supports the
plai1tiffs, and holds that the amend
ment is null and void, as alleged by
them. He first states
THE GROUNDS.
of illegality claimed in the petition,
which are as follows:
First That the amendment was
not entered upon the journals of the
house and senate of the legislature with
the nays and yeas, as required by law:
that it was not published according to
law, and that it could not legally be
voted upon the 9th day of June, the
day of the election, nor until the 4ih
day of July, 1888.
Second-That whereas in 1858 the
manufacture of all liquors except ale
and beer was prohibited, the making
of the articles has been specially pro-
tected ever since, and if the amendment
holds good all the capital invested in
the business is rendered worthless, and
thus the vested right Of property would
be impaired without compensation.
Third-The nineteenth general as
sembly. for the sake of obtaining a
certain desired construction in the
amendment, changed the punctuation
of the measure, so that it is in fact
now different instrument from the
one passed by the proceeding assem-
bly,.
Fourth-That an error Intentional
or accidental, was made in TRANSCRIPT
ing the matter on the books of the
eight assembly, in which the amend
ment was first introduced, by which
three important words were omitted
and the sense altered from what was
FIRST voted upon.
The Judge holds that the objection
as to distinction OF capital by the
amendment can hardly be considered
sufficient reason for declaring il illegal,
but bases his decision upon other
grounds. The following are some ex-
| tracts from the decision:
That there was failure to comply
with the plain provisions of the consti-
| tuition in relation to Its own amend
ment in the preliminary steps of sub
hitting this proposed amendment to
be voted upon, as alleaged, IS fully sus-
tanned by the evidence and that evi-
dence in the main Is the journals OF
the two houses of the general assembly.
| The change or amendment OF the fun
damental law of the land as amatter o.
so great moment and importance and
so far reaching and listing in us effecl
| that il should be done only with great
| deliberation as provided and in strici
conformity with legal and constitutina
provisions. To that end these provis
| ions are made in this view with the
idea of protecting the rights, liberties
and interests of the people, and must
| be fully. even exactly. complied with
ANY other rule would be fraught will
danger to the liberties of the people
and It is not to be tolerated. There il
nothing merely technical in this as Their,
might be in
MERE CHANCE or PUNCTUATION,
but it is 8 matter of substance and
makes an entire change of meaning
and so there is complete failure &c
comply with the constitutional pro
| visions that the proposed amendmen
must be agreed to by both houses 0