The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-23
PROHIBITING PROHIBITION.
Disputed Legislation Discussed by
the Iowa Supreme Court.
The Former Opinion enthusiastically
of Constitutions and Danger of
Tampering with Them,

voluminous the majority covering eighty
four pages of legal cap, and the minority,
consisting of Judge Beck alone, covering lib
pages. The majority opinion is in harmony
with that rendered at the first hearing, de-
claring the amendment null and void. The
opinion of the court was delivered by Chief
Justice Day. The only new question raised
in the argument for rehearng was that of
jurisdiction. The court is positive that
courts are instituted for the purpose
of adjudicating acts of the Legisla-
ture. The court says: "Peti-
ton for rehearing was presented
In this cause and the whole case has been re-
argued by eminent counsel with much abili-
ty and research. In view of the great inter-
est which has attached 10 this question and
of its public Importance, it is deemed not
only proper but necessary to examine with
considerable fullness the leading points relied
upon as necesstating conclusion different
from the one reached in the foregoing opin-
ion 1t is asserted in the petition for rehearing
that the judicial department of the State has
no jurisdiction over the political question
and cannot review the action of the Nine
tenth General Assembly and of the people
in the matter of the adoption or amendment
.sTI;s nos;t;on nract;calIv amounts n tbis.
That the provisions OF the constitution for its
own amendment are simply directory and
may be disregarded with impunity.
at is idle to say that these requirements of
the constitution must be observed if depart
ments charged with their observance are the
sole Judges as to whether or not they have
been complied with. This proposition was
advanced for the first time upon petition
for a rehearing. and, if correct, it is, of
course an end to the controversy. Upon
this branch of the case the counsel cite Lu-
Their VS.. Borden. Howard, 1, As this case
has principally been relied upon by advo-
Gates of the theory now under consideration,
and has been given great prominence in dis
cussons which have taken place, the court
presents its facts with il degree of fullness
which, under ordinary circumstances. would
perhaps be considered unnecessary, to the
end that the degree of its applicability to the
present case may be fully understood"
THE FACTS IN THE 11TTHER CASE
81, 81, .4.4. = a., t1
Aeie iOii""' iN'' ''"'e'i'e"' Vi 'iie i'0t'
IN the Luthef case ana law queSuonS raised
OF the correctness of that decision no one
rar ertertoin sbador, of n dorht Lut +bo
49, 49, q" ''o
uluerehces between that case ana thlS' says
the court, are so many and so evident as to
denrive IL of all force as mn authority in the
,.o,,4 4.o,,oz,. r ~ ~
change IN the form OF government was I'M
dertaken; in this simply an amendment, in
no manner ,ffect;ng tha ;udicoI au,bor;tv Of
a.
muse ac'i"s u'uer '"e eAis'ihS governments
IS sought to be incorporated into the existing
constitution. In that case the charter pro-
vided no means for its amendments: in this
the mode of amendment is specifically pro-
yided In that case the authority of the court
was invoked for the admission of oral evil
dence to overthrow the existing government
and establish a new one in its place; in this
that authority is invoked simply to preserve
the present constitution intact 1t is appar-
emit the reasoning employed in that case can
have no application Whatever to an amend
ment to the constitution which does not af-
lec' oee lor.i " goverhniT T OF Juulc'9i pow
the doctrine that the sovereignty of the peo-
PIE extehus rlgntiuiIy TO tne oVerturhlhg OF
witbout regard ~ forms If eyistino nro'
visions 1t is true that the right under our
form OF government exists but 1t is revo-
WIEN t5a+ richt iS nvotod oneStio,, 49,:
which is above the constitution and above
the courts, and which contending factions
can alone ueterhiine oy appear 10 the uer-
that micht makes rioht. II has been said
that changes in the constitution may be in
i troauceu IN disresard OF lts provisions; that
the maJority OF people desired chanSe
lne majority mus DC respeGteo, no mater
now tue chahge may De eHec.ed, ana that
cnange, II ievo'ut'on, IS peacelil revolution;
put reN"!u'i"" 10 peacelut ON! upon the
a osu'nP'io'i 'i.. ele pa5 1pp"seu s"rreii-
ueIs us oPpositt:ion UNI NJ . acqul-
esces. II 10 ouJeots W Jus c"It.se, tliel Ine
QUESTION arlSes Mnici, ean W utternineu
onty ~ o"e V, W. =!
.lit Diss u.Se we q''estlo" s we WIli
;tt ~ as VIZ may! LUIS tne iae1
VIZ mt. Will Nc "'e , az is' -! iace
a;;. ~ snao as uIea1lui
,.oo;o.nd '"ouiu Oe "ppiene"ueu anu ap-
THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT'S ADOPTION.
We fear save the court that tho advocates