The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-04-25
NULL AND VOID.

The Supreme Court of Iowa Decides that
the Prohibitory Amendments Are ia
constitutional.
DUBUQUE. Iowa. April 2.-The decision in the
amendment case was not fled until O'Clock this
afternoon. The opinions are voluminous, TIE
majority covering eighty-four pages of legal CAP
add the minority consisting OF Judge Beck alone,
covering lis pages. The majority opinion is In
harmony with that rendered at the first hearing,
declaring the amendment null and void. The
opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief jus
lice Day. The only new question raised in the
argument for a rehearing was that Il
Jurisdiction. The Ccur. is positive that Courts
are instituted for the purpose of the publication
| OF the acts of the Legislature. The Judge rays:
"a petition for TeheaIing Was presented in THIS
cause ana the whole case has beea Ieargued by
eminent couD sci. with much ability aud RESEARCH
| In view of The great interest which has been at
iached 10 this question, ana az It's public import
snce, 1t is deemed not only proper, but neCeSsar,
to examine with considerable iulneks the l. sdtue
points relied upon ss necessitatiug a conclusion
different from the one reached IN the fOregGipg
opinion. II is asserted I'm the petition for rehCaT
| lug that the Judicial DEPARTING. of the Stale
has no jurisdiction over political questions. and
can not review the action OF the Nineteenth Ger
eral Assembly AID OF the people IL the matter OF
| the adoption or amendment Of the Constitution
| Of the State This position practically amounts
to this that the prov iOus of Jbe Constitution for
its own amendment sre simply dirse cry, and
|
is idle 20 say that these Requirements
of the Constitution must be observed
If the departments charged with Their Observance
are the cole judges as TO whether or not ties
have been complied with. This propos tiol wa
advanced for the first time upon the petition fJI
Iehearing, and If correct, i. is of course an eud
| to the controversy. Upon this branch Of the case
counsel cite Luther VS.. Borden, Il Howard, 1. AS
this case has principally been relied upon by the
and has given great prominence in the discus
sions which have taken place, the Urt
presents its facts with degree
circumstances would. perhaps, be considered
unnecessary, to the end that the degree Of its ap
plicabiiiy 10 the present case moy be fully un
| derstood." Here follows full statement of facts
in the Luther case, and the law questions raised
| ''Of the correctness Of that decision one can
entertain shadow OF doubt, but tho differences
between that case and this says the Court. are so
many ana evident as to deprive 1t of all fore.
/ as an authority IN the present controversy. In
that case AZ entire change in the form of govern
amendment. in no manner afTectinE
the judicial authority of those acting under tn
existing Governments sought 10 beincOiporated
| into the existing Constitution. In that case the
charter PROVIDED no means for its amendment.
/ In this the mode of amendment is specifically
provided. In that case the authority Of the
Court was inyok ed for the admission of oral evil
de9ee to ovsrthhrow the existing Government
and establish new one In its place In this that
authority is invoked simply 10 preserve
the present Constitution intact. 1t
is apparent that the reasoning employed
in that case can have no application whatever to
amendment TO the Constitution which does not
effect the form of Government or judicial forms
OF existing Courts. The case of Luther VS.. Borden
that the sovereignty of the people extends right
fully to the oyerturning Of the Con-
oaes x,ooa a9d adoption forms t neT
existing provisions Il is true that the right
under our form OF Government exists, but IL is
evolutionary and not Constitutional night.
above Courts and which contendiug fac
tons can alone determine by appealing 10
right 1t has been said that changes in the Com
stitution may be introduced in disregard Of it.
provisions; that If majority of the people de
sired change. the majority must be resi- ected,
be sffsced, and that The change,
| IL revolution, is peaceful revolution. But TevO-
luton is peaceful only upon the assumption that
voluntarily acquiesces If It objects TO the
change, then the question arises which can be de-
termined only in one OF two methods b. arbitIa
WILL theofiZe about 1t as we may, this Is feet with
which We are at last brought face to face, AID
| should be apprehended and appreciated"
I'VE fear," says the Count, that advocates
Of this doctrine in the zeal TO accomplish an end
which majority OF the people desire, have looked
at but one phase of the question. aud have not
fully considered the terrible consequences whiS
would almost certsinly follow the recognition o.
the incorporation of that amendment IN the Con-
stitution, If the Constitution has 70 ne
broken to accomplish IL, would not OF itself pro-
duce any serious results, but If IL should be done
by sanctionlng the doctrine contenced for, the
precedent would be set which would plague the
State for al future time Bauquos ghost would
arise a our incarnation which would not down at
our bidding.
The contract between the rival governments
In Rhode Island raised question which was
above the power of the existing Courts. and it Is
matter OF history that IL was not determined
until the adherents of the Den. CO. s;itutiol
WEE have resG history St0 70 Hue purpose purpose
II we refuse TO learn from lis examples or profit
by its teachings. The public dangers which
Presidency, SO graphically and so beautifully
we're averted only through a Commission
Judicial powers, which, jSdlciensIy de1ermSne d
the questions involved, and to whose decisions
the pesple yielded voluntary obedience. That
civil war. The politicaI department. Of the
Government to which 30 much refer
appalled, and impotent in the face of the great dsn
gers, and yet we are asked TO abdfcate our fuuc-
tons, TO deny our jurisdiction and to leave the
que stion of an amendment 10 The Constitution
unless voluntarily acquiesced In 20 Undetermined
by a resort 10 arms. We ought TO
ponder long before we adopt doctrine so frought
ger lies ia the line Of argument OF the appellants
attorney. Courts can never oyerturn
our institutions subvert liberties.
They. command neither peace Dor the
Sword of State, but a people which is ed
ucated 10 disrespect discisions and disregard the
adjudicatiops of Courts are prepared for anarchy
with all Its attendant evils and dread
be excused IT, in the interest of
social order, and public security and permancy
of Republican Institutions. We enter most earn
est protest against heresies which have been ad.
yanced in this case
The Court then refers TO cases cited by appel
lant-13 Peters, 4l4: S BlatchfOrd. II: ID Wallace
646, and others-snd points out where they differ
| from the case at bar. The Court quoted from rs
Pennsyivanta State, applicable here-that there