The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-25

ments Notwithstanding the Irregularities
therein are held to be sufficient to defeat the
amendments.
courts often refuse to adhere to their de-
cision, but override them and recognize the
principles of law Numerically opposed to
the rules of their first decision. Judges
sometimes change their opinions, but more
frequently the decisions are overruled by
reason of new judges taking the places of
those who have retired from the bench. An
instance of this kind is in the recent history
OF this court in 1869 We held that a stat
ute authorizing township to levy in aid of
the construction of railroads was unconsti-
tutional and void (Hansen VS.. Vernon, q
Iowa. 81. In 1870 less than two years after
that, the decision of this court was over
ruled, and statute identical in its effect
and general provisions WIS declared to be
constitutional. After the decision of the case
first named, two OF the judges concurring
therein retired IRON the bench, and their
successors uniting with the judge who dis
agreed in the first opinion, constituted ma
jority which oyer.dled Hansen VS.. Vernon
and established other rules directly opposite
to those approved in that case Decisions of
courts do not make law, but simply
declare what the law is. The
judicial theory is the law as declared by the
courts existed and was of force before the
decision. 1t is very plain that if the courts
have jurisdiction to declare what is the con-
stitution and what is not, that an amend
ment to that instrument was OF was not law
fully adopted, and is therefore not in force
or is of no effect the constitution, the SUI
preme law to-day, may not be tomorrow
The stability of the constitution is absolutely
necessary for the general prosperity of the
State
Under the doctrine recognized by a ma
jority OF this court the amendment to the
constitution in question is void, and the
manufacture and sale of wine and beer is
lawful. On the advent of new judges, the
decision OF this court, announced to-day,
may be overruled, and the amendment de-
clared valid and part of the constitution.
Such decision would have the effect to de-
clare that the amendment was valid from the
first, and the citizens will then find that they
are burdened with liabilities, and probably
subject to penalties for acts which they are TO-
nightallowed to perform by this decision. All
lawful contracts will then be invalid, which,
under this decision, are esteemed in force.
Surely, in view of this consideration, the de-
cision OF this court is to be deplored. These
consequences can be averted in no other way
than by limiting the exercise OF judicial au-
thorty to judicial questions, and forbidding
its exercise in the decision of political ques-
TONS If the judges decide the political
question they must enter the arena of poiiti-
cal strife. Nothing can be palmer. No Ian
guage can be used too strongly condemning
such a thing. The judges ought not to be
partisan or be influenced by partisan con
troll. Their duty is to interpret and extend
the law but extends to no political ques-
tons. Let the judges conline themselves to
the sphere of their constitutional jurisdiction,
and decide only judicial questions Unless
the people in the exercise of their sovereign
power control the courts in constitutional
manner. the Judiciary may become the
supreme arbiter of all political questions
The Legislature was required to frame an
amendment to the constitution and submit
it to the people. This was all preparatory to
the exercise of the peoples sovereign power.
The people were to approve and ratify, and
thus make it a part of the constitution,
which they did. This is what gave life to
the instrument Preparatory and prelim-
mary proceedings cannot after the constitu-
ton is ratified and adopted, affect the in
strument. Irregularities on the part of the
Legislature do not enter into the constitu-
ton; if they did, the peoples ratification
cures them. The courts have no power to
interfere in the case. They must accept the
instrument as the constitution of the State.
This synopsis compasses the opinion of
Justice Beck regarding the jurisdiction of the
court. He proceeds thereafter to review his
former opinion and to substantiate it by ad-
ditionai facts and evidence.