The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1883-01-25
the AMENDMENT.
The Supreme Judges Declare
that the Prohibition Law
Is Invalid.
The Decision Of Judge Hayes,
Of the Lower Court,
Fully Sustained.
Judge 0ev IN Delivers tho Majority
Opinion and Reviewl the
0t ,tut0.
Judge BECK, the Only Disscntlent Meld1
10 the Sonndness Of Tho
Measure.

Measure.
The Supreme Court rendered its decision
at Des Moincs, on tho 18th Of January, IN
the case of kohlcr 4 IAnge VI John Hills
appealed from the Scott District Court
The dcciAion of tho lower court declaring
tho prohibitory amendment invalid WA
sustained, four Judges affirming In m e.
haustive opinion by Justice severn. Judge
Beck dissenting. Every material point ad-
vanced by Judge Hayes, 10 far ~ tho court
decided At all was sustained The court
only felt called upon 10 render nm opinion
upon . Single qnestion--whcthcr tho dis
crcpancy In the journals Of the House and
Senate Of the Eighteenth General Assembly
would materially affect the legality of tho
measure though IL was agreed To bv tho
Nineteenth General Assembly in due FORM
In tracing tho course Of the proposed
smsndment through the Journals Of the
finds: "l'hat the proposition originated in
the House, was agreed u and sent To tho
Senate where \ substitute MAS adopted,
agreed to, and returned to tho House
That substitute, by the Senate Journals,
no sasMa nsrsen 70 aha. read If Follows ter
sale, soil. or keep for sale, as u beverages
or TO be used for such purpose. any intoxi-
eating liquors whatever, including ale, wine
and hcer,' When Il appeared In the House
the words or 10 be used were omitted, and,
with that omission, was agreed TO and r.
ferrcd To the next General Assembly. by
which body IL was passed The question be-
fore US IL Mx to the validity Of q constitutions
q amendment. and we think there II ma
terial distinction between the rules which
S.&
II assAiled ~ not having been CONSTITUTIONAL
II enacted The constitution provides fur
its own amendments and the manner in
which this may he done IL prescribed with
particularly. and yet the provisions are
simple and readily understood An amend
ment may bc proposed In either house et
the General Assembly. and II the same shall
be agfecd to by = majority Of the mem
bers elected % each ot the two houses
the proposed amendment shall be- catered
on the Journals with The Yeas and nays
thereon Much has hecn said by counsel as
to whether the provision as t. entering the
proposed amendment ON the journals Il
mandatory or directory. We sla not regard
Il ~ essential to determine this question
We deem IL sufficient 10 say that II there IL
amy provision If the constitution which
sho0ld DO regarded as mandatory II Is where
the constitution provides for it, own amend.
Ment otherwise than by means III n conven-
tion called for that purpose. The powers ct
= convention arr, II course, unlimited The
members thereof arc the representatives of
the people. called together for that purpose
The object of the provision can NOT 10
doubted or misunderstood II l. storrc~ersc
In the manner Indicated the Identical
amendment, proposed anu IN an authentic
form which, under the constitution IL II
come before the succeeding General Assem-.
bly,. No hetter mode could have been
adopted. when il il considered that II hc IT.
feesiNe the proposed amendment Mast hc
agreed To by the Succcedlny Gencral Assem-.
bly,, This Thought il much strengthened
by the consideration that the proposed
amendment II only required Ia he entered
on the Journals of the i,rst General Assembly
which acts thereon This distinction, to
our minds Is significant, and enhances the
impoi tance Of the constitutional injunction
that the proposed amendment shall he IN
tercd on the Journals of h"th houses ~ the
General Assembly which isrSt agrccs thcicta
II is immaterial, however, whether the cen-
stitutsen provides the tcst method for tho
preservation of the authenticity of the pro
posed amendment or nuI tor the con>titu>
tional mode must prevail, even II u - con-
ceslcd soMc ether would have heen better,
II secms to Us that a slmply entering on the
Journal ot tho title or chlest ~
the rrupuSod amendment does not accom-
plssh the intent Of the constitution, AMI the
Thought that this must be 81 j. much
strengthened when regard Il had Ia al the
Ment provides that upon the fnal rassaye
OF a bill the YEAS AMI navS must le eaAea
and the same entered upon the journal
This GeceSSitates the entering On tho Journal
Of the title or substance OF the bull u hc
voted upon This heing 81, il no mere than
this Mas intended in relation 10 y aconststn-
tional amendment, the provision u enter
tng II on the Journal Il unnecessary
and McansngicSS There ia no pro
/ vision requiring = hill - 10 entered On tho
/ journal. but the constitution dae> require
/ that y proposed amendment thereto shall hs
| entered on the journals With the yeas and
nayN This must mean that the amendments
4 ahall hc spread NJ length thereon ami the
\ yeas and nays set cut IN fuQ or at length
4 No distinction between the twe can possibly
/ he drawn Amendments MerC proposed q
| the constitution In the Eleventh General
| Assembly, soMc of which Merc agreed to,
but all were spread at length IN the journal,
The amendments afterward ratified by The
/ electors striking out the word white where
il occurred in the constitution were among
the amendments proposed at that session
These amendments We're spread at length
| Upon the Journals of both houses Here w
have = legislative construction of the CON
| stitutien which should not and cannet hs
I ignored It will be observed that the con
stitu,ien does not provide in what nsaaas'
the amendment shall be proposed WhetA
\ er il shall he done by bill or Joint ie>o
discretion Of the General Assembly to deter
mine Hut In whatever way proposed
when agreed to. il il provided that II shalt =,
entered ON the Journal The Senate sub
s,itate for the House resolution, when IN
tredaeed. Mas entered az length upon sh'
II the words Including ale. wine ans
beer These words are set out At length il
the Journal The substitute, When Intro
daccd. contained the words, or 10 te Use,
for such purpose The words TOR sasi
purpose. Mere stricken out. as shown hs th
Journal. Thersnpen the substitute wa
agreed IL and the Joint resolution, rs thu
amended, WAS agreed ta hy the senate III
words, or % lie used We're ia the sah>ti
tute when il was introduced They Mef
!, not, 80 far - the Journal shows stricken ou
bv any action taken by the Senate II ncces
s;lfils follows that ~ far as can be dete'
mined from any competent evidence, IN
! verbs or u be used we're in and formed
part of the substitute when IL passed, AZ
the Joint resolution Was agiccd - " tn
Senate.
} -The journal Of the House If the Eighteen,
General Assembly fails a. Set out or eve
show, the substance Of the substitute I
amendment of the House Joint resalutaa
: which had heen adopted by the S.aat'
1 such lenrnai only sets out the original r.ass
lntiun which had been introduced IN II
House. and shows simply that the Hou'
. concarrcd in the Senasr substitute. an
= therefore the House journal fails 10 rho
! that IL adopted the same resolution Mhis
7 was adopted hy the Senate. Ii Was sugges
2 ed on the oral argument hy one Of the caU
sel fur the appellant that the words or u
, used were struck out Of the substitute
Y common consent before il Was adopted
/ the Senate and ii WAS further suggested !
such argument that We can readily aSrs
j. tain, II we should consult the persons pre-
i ent at the time. including the members
the senate. and that we shall mot only do 1
!, hut that such is our duty. This aTgume
y practically comedies the necessity of gettil
& rid of the words aforesaid In some mann,
IN has been said The senate journal. by Z
j provisions Of the constitution, III made I
: primary evidence of the contents of the T,