Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1883-04-23
The LAST DITCH.
The ForlOrn Hope Of Iowa
PrOhibitiOniStS a Flat
Failure.
The Supreme COURT Declares
the Amendment Null
and Void.
Principal Points of tho Decision

Special Dispatch to THE BEE,
DUBUQUE, Iowa, April 21.--The de.
clsion In the amendment case was not
fled until s o'clock this afternoon.
The opinions are voluminous, the ma.
jority covering "a pages of legal cap,
and the minority, consisting of Judge
Beck alone, covering 113 pages. The
majority opinion IL In harmony with
that rendered at the first hearing, de-
olaring tie amendment null and void.
The opinion of the court was deliver.
ed by Chief Justice Day. Onthe only
new q aestisn raised In the argument
for rehearing, that of jurisdiction,
the court Is positive that the courts
are instituted for the purpose Of ad-
Indicating the acts of the Legislature.
The court says, q petition for re-
hearing was presented In this cause
and whole cases have been reargued
by eminent counsel with much ability
and research. In view of the great
interest which has attached to this
question, and of its public Importance,
It ID deemed not only proper but nec.
essary to examine with considerable
fullness the leading points relied upon
a. necessitating q conclusion differ.
ent from the one reached In the
FOREGOING OPINION
It is ass serted in the opinion for re.
hearing, that the judicial department
of the state has not jurisdiction over
. political question and cannot review
the action Of the fifteenth general as
sembly of the people in the matter OF
the ado ption or amendment OF the con-
stitution of the state. This position
practically amounts to this: That pro-
visions of the constitution for its own
amendment are simply directory and
may be disregarded with impunity,
for 1t Ia Idle to say that these require
ments Of the constitution must be OBJ
served If departments charged with
their observance are the sole judges
a. to whether or not they have beer
compiled with. This proposition wal
advanced for the first time upon th'
petition for Q rehearing, and II correo
It Is of course an end to the oontro
versy. Upon this branch of the cas-
the counsel cite Luther vs. Borden Z
Howard l. As this case has prinoi
pally been relied upon by the advo
Gates of the theory now! IN der consid
Grafton, and has been given grea
prominence In the discussions whic
have taken place, the court present
Its facts with a degree of fullnes
which, under ordinary circumstances
would, perhaps, be considered ur
necessary to present, that the cas-
may be
FULLY UNDERSTOOD.
Here follows q full statement {
facts In the Luther case, and the la
questions raised. Of the oorrectnel
of that decision no one can entertai
shadow OF doubt. But differences
between that case and this, says IL
court, are so many and so evident
TO deprive It Of all force as an author
ty In the present controversy. In thi
case an entire change In the form
government was undertaken; In thi
simply an amendment In no mann
affecting the judicial authority of tho
acting under the existing governmen
Il sought to be incorporated Into Il
existing constitution. In that ca
the charter provided no means for
amendment. It this the mo-