The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-20
TWELVE PAGES.
THE IOWA DECISION.

The decision of the Supreme Court OF Iowa
upon the prohibition amendment is clearly
and squarely against its validity for the
defect, among others, that is alleged against
the pending amendments in this State. Else
where we give full and comprehensive abb
stract of the opinion OF the majority of the
court. There was dissenting opinion by
Justice Beck. The court holds that amend
ments to the constitution must be entered at
length upon the journals of the two houses
and for failure to do this, and because Of
variance in the text between the proposition
passed by the Senate and that passed by the
House, the passage of the amendment is de-
clared to have been invalid.
OF course this decision will have its influ-
ence upon the question in this State. It's to
be noted, however, that the decision was not
unanimous. and good lawyers will continue
to be divided as they have been and are,
upon the vitality of the alleged informalties.
1t is also to be said that decisions of Su-
preme Courts do not settle questions peremp-
few recent years shows some very important
Supreme Court decisions that have been
overruled, frequently by the same court, at
other times by their successors, and
more potential in this country
then any other, and which, sooner or later,
succeeds in writing its judgments in judicial
reports as we'll as in legislative statutes. The
opinion of the Iowa court specifically says
that it has been the uniform custom in that
State to spread constitutional amendmentsat
length upon the legislative journals, and the
decision only follows and adheres to ac-
knowledged precedent. What has been said
and done upon this question in Indiana has
been in harmony with precedent here, and
based upon facts and opinions hitherto I'M
questioned among US. There are number of
amendments in the present constitution not
one of which was treated differently from
those passed by the last General Assembly,
while, as has been repeatedly published, the
same defect in the Wabash and Erie canal
amendment, which involved millions of dol
lars, though specifically called to the at
tention of the Legislature and the people
was treated as of no Importance. and the
amendment itself was sanctioned by two such
eminent lawyers as Governor Baker and
Governor Hendricks, acting upon their oaths
in behalf of the State.
We do not care to go into any argument
upon this matter. The Journal has contented
itself with the statement of facts, and for
itself has been willing to accept the opinion
Of Messrs Baker and Hendricks, to be con-
tent with the uniform and unquestioned
lieve that the Supreme Court would not
hold to construction that might possibly
invaldate all the important amendments
now incorporated into the organic law. But
as we have twice stated this phase of the
question is one involving no vital question of
party fealty, and members of the Legislature,
reference to it as their judgments and con-
sciences dictate. The votes of the great body
of the Republican members of the Lcssla-
ture thus far given indicate their purpose
to adhere to the presidents in the constitu-
tional history of this State, and to abide by
course of conduct mapped out without re-
spect to the condition OF things in Iowa.