The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-24
IOWA N

IOWA AND KANSAS.
The Journal stated, in its article yesterday,
that upon the question involved in
the validity of the pending constitutional
amendments in this State, the decisions in
various States were contradictory. We have
before us the text of the decision of the
Kansas Supreme Court, in which the ques-
ton is examined at length, and a conclusion
reached at variance with that of the major
ity of the lows court. 1t is to be stated,
unanimous in its opinion and judgment, and
that it ranks as high as a court as does the
Iowa bench. Why, then, should not the de-
cision in Kansas be regarded as good an au-
thority in Indiana as that OF the Iowa ma
jority? The Kansas opinion sets forth the
following as one of the reasons upon which
the prohibitory amendment was attacked:
Upon the journal of neither house does
this amendment appear; it is simply de-
scribed US Senate joint resolution No. 8,
proposing An amendment to Article XIV of
the constitution of the State of Kansas, rela-
ting to the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors" etc.
This is precisely the state OF affairs in In
diana. Upon this question the Kansas court
say:
THE constitution provides that the pro-
posed amendment, together with the yeas
and nays. shall be entered upon the jour
nails" The exact language of the constitu-
ton of Indianal. Is the failure to enter the
amendments at length in the journals fatal?
= = = Is a proposition to amend the con-
stitution in the nature OF a criminal proceed
ing, in which the opponents of change stand
as defendants in criminal action,
entitled to avail themselves of any technical
error or verbal mistake, or is it rather a civil
proceeding, in which the omissions and err
rors which work no wrong to substantial
rights are to be disregarded? Unhesitat-
ingly we affirm the latter. The central idea
OF Kansas law, as we'll as of Kansas history,
is that substance of right is grander and
more potent than methods and forms. The
two important and vital elements in any
constitutional amendment are the assent of
two-thirds of the Legislature and a majority
OF the popular vote. Beyond these. other
provisions are mere machinery and forms.
They may not be disregarded, because by
them certainty as to the essentials is secured.
But they are not the essentials themselves.
Take a strong illustrations: The constitution
requires that the Secretary OF State shall
llS blt taAllt - w lAohASiit0 IL db az
one newspaper in each county of the State
where a newspaper is published at least
three months preceding etc. Suppose a
unan imous vote of both houses of the Legis-
lature, and a unanimous vote OF the people
in favor OF a constitutional amendment, but
that the Secretary has omitted to publish in
one county in which a newspaper is pub
lished, would it not be simply an insult to
common sense to hold that thereby the will
of the Legislature and of the people
had been defeated? Is it within the power
of the Secretary, either through ignorance or
design, to thwart the popular decision? Is he
given a veto, or can he create one? This may
be an extreme case, but it illus
trates the principle. The records
OF the proceedings are not made by the
houses themselves, but by. clerical
officers. True, they are under the control
of the respective houses, but in fact the
records are made by clerks. May they de-
feat the legislative will? The court does not
make amendment dependent upon their
approval or their action. To insure GER
tainty and guard against mistakes. journal
evidence of the amendments and votes is
prescribed, but This is mere matter of evil
dence, and not the substantial condition of
constitutional changes.
'In constitutional changes the popular
voice is the paramount fact. while to guard
against undue haste and temporary excite
ment, to prevent unnecessary and frequent
appeals LOT cOtStltuttOnal a~menuIneHt, Lne
assent of twO-thirds OF the Legislature is
prescribed as a condition precedent; yet,
after all, that which determines constitu-
tional changes is the popular will. This is
a government of the people. by the people,
and for the people, and whenever the clear
voice of the people is heard legislatures and
courts must obey. 4 4 q Legislative ac-
ton is simply a determination to submit
the question to popular decision. 1t is in
no case final. No number of legislatures
and no amount of legislative action can
change the fundamental law. This was
made by the people, and they alone can
change it. The action of the Legislature in
respect to constitutional changes is some
thing like the action of a committee of the
Legislature in respect to legislative DISPOSE
ton of a bill. 1t presents, it recommends,
but it does not decide, and who ever
thought of declaring a law invalid by
reason of Irregularities in the proceedings of
the committee which first passed upon it?
1t is the legislative action which is con-
sidered in determining whether the law has
been constitutionalIy passed; and it is the