Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1882-11-10


ing the validity of the Iowa l'rohib.
itOry Amendment-Jud Hayes of
the DaVenp0rt District Court
of the Law.
DAVENPORT, Iowa, Nov. S.-The dis
trict court was crowded with lawyers
and spectators this morning, anxious
10 hear the long decision in
the famous test trial Of the prohibitory
amendment to the constitute on of the
State. The case is entitled koehler e
Lange vs.. John Hill, and the particu-
lars OF the claims and specifications
were telegraphed when the
petition was filed last August
koehler Il Lange, a firm of Brewers,
sue John Hill, a 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 & Lange filed a cross
petition claiming that the amendment
isillegal, null and void, through failnre
to comply with all the requirements OF
the amendment. Judge Hayes in his
decision this morning supports the
plaiutiifs, and holds that the amend
ment is null and void, as alleged by
them. He first states
TIE GROUNDS.
of lllegality claimed in the petition,
which are rs follows:
First That the amendment was
not entered upon the Journals OF the
house and senate of the legislature with
the nays and yeas, ss required by law.
that IL was not published according To
law, and that it could not legally be
voted upon the 9th day of June, the
day ofthe election, nor until the 9Th
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 the amendment
holds good all the capital invested in
the business is rendered worthless, and
thus the vested right of property would
be impaired withou, compensation.
Third-The nineteenth general as
sembly, for the sake of obtaining
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 transcrib-
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 a failure to comply
with the plain provisions ofthe consti-
tuition in relation to its own amend
ment in the preliminary steps of SUBJ
mitting this proposed amendment to
be voted upon, as alleaged, is fully sus-
tanned by the evidence and that evil
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 a matter OF
so great moment and importance and
SO far reaching and lasting in its effect
that it should be done only with great
deliberation as provided and in strict
conformity with legal and constitutional
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.
/ ,1x, u~K.fd -
danger to the liberties Of the people
nothing merely technical In this as there
might be In
MERE CHANCE OF PUNCTUATION,
but it is a matter of substance and
makes an entire change of meaning,
and 30 there ID complete failure TO
comply with the constitutional pro-
visions that the proposed amendment
must be agreed to by both houses of
two succeeding assemblies and then
ratified by vote of the people. The
amendment as is claimed now TO exist
and as it was voted upon never passed
the senate of the Eighteenth gener-
al assembly at all, and so the very first
and most important step required for
It's successful application was not COM
piled with and it follows that it is not
legally, or in fact part OF the consti-
tuition of the state and cannot be made
the basis to defeat recovery of the
price of beer sold under the circum-
stances of this case.
The decision concludes with the usu-
al words that the plaintiff will have
judgement AZ claimed with costs. The
defendant gave notice of an appeal 70
the supreme court Good lawyers hold
that from this on all saloons In this ju-
dicial district are properly legalized to
90 bust mess.