The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-23
WHAT are you going to do about ii, Demo
cratic members of the General Assembly?
IOWA AND INDIANA.

$500 RNN $4,000
application in this State, and that is as TO the
entering upon the journals" OF the text OF
the amendments All other questions and
alleged defects upon which the amendment
proposition, and can have no relevancy here.
In the Journal OF Saturday we alluded to
the fact that the Iowa court had specifically
stated that the uniform course in that State
has been to regard the provision OF the con-
stitution for entering upon the journals as
meaning entering at length" aud, there
fore, the decision OF the courtsimply adhered
to unbroken precedent. We also said that
in Indiana the precedent had been the other
way. 1t has not been the custom here to
enter amendments at length upon the
journals, and hence we did not believe the
Supreme Court of Indiana would now adopt
q new construction of the requirement, the
effect of which might be to invalidate all the
amendments which had been incorporated
into the constitution.
A further examination of the lows deci-
sion strengthens this view of the case, and
leads to the conclusion that, upon
the principle of the majority de-
cision, the same court would not, in
this State, invalidate an amendment
for the same alleged defect. The lowe court
alludes to the fact that Sin the Eleventh
General Assembly certain amendments were
proposed to the constitution, some of which
were agreed to, but all were spread at length
upon the journal, +" and then the court adds:
Here we nave q legislative construction of
the constitution which SHOULD not and cam
not be ignored"
Now transpose the case to Indiana. In the
case of the Wabash & Erie canal amend
ment the precise question was called to the
attention of the Legislature, and that body
gave a direct and ~unequivocal legislative
construction, which the Iowa court says
'must not and cannot be ignored" If
such a construction cannot be ignored
in Iowa, why should it be ignored in Indiana?
But more than that: this construction OF
the constitution has been followed by the
executive department, represented by two
such eminent Governors and jurists as
Governor Baker and Governor Hendricks.
Not only, therefore, has this clause been
legislatively construed in Indiana, but it has
been ~eXecutiyely construed. Two depart
ments of the government, each independent
and coordinate. have given a construction of
this particular provision Of the constitution,
and it is a construction which makes valid
the pending amendments. 1t would be a
~high-handed and impertinent act for the
judicial department to ignore and set aside
this construction by the Legislature and the
Executive, The Supreme Court of Iowa
says such q construction must not and can
not be ignored" 1t is fair to assume that,
had the Supreme Court of Iowa been met
with a condition OF things in that State
similar to that which obtains in Indiana,
they would have followed the unvarying
construction of the constitution given
to it by the legislative and execu-
tive departments; certainly, upon the
principles of their decision they could not
have ignored the decisive action of the
Legislature at two sessions, and of two Gov
errors, with respect to an amendment as i'm
portant in its nature as the Wabash and
Erie canal amendment. 1t will be seen,
therefore, that upon this point-the only one
at all ~relevant-the Iowa decision, when its
reasoning is examined, affords no ground for
those who, in their eagerness to serve the in
terests of the liquor league, would ignore the
whole current of constitutional history in
this State and imperil the validity of all
the amendments to the constitution, not one
OF which has hitherto been questioned from
any source.
The reading of the entire decision of the
Iowa court cannot fail to impress any one
reasons to overthrow the amendment. This
has been remarked even by those who ap-
prove the opinion. Among other statements
is one to the effect that there is no constitu-
tional provision for the enrolment OF bills,
and, therefore, enrolled copies of legislative
enactments are not, constitutionally, better
evidence than the journals. This again is IN
direct contravention of the decision OF the
Supreme Court of this State, and of the law
in Indiana, where the enrolled bill, properly
attested by the officers Of the two houses, is
held to be incontestable evidence OF the
passage of an act. The Iowa court say that
there is as great reason TO believe that errors
may be made in enrolled bills as in journal
ization. This is possibly true, but not proba-
Bile. Everybody knows that all possible
safeguards are thrown about enrolment.
There are committees to examine enrolled