The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-05
IOWA PROHIBITION.
The fetition for Reheartng Before the
Supreme Court.

The Petition for "a Reheartng Before the
Supreme Court.
Davenport Sp ecial to Chicago Inter Ocean.
The Supreme Court after going through
some routine work, took up the famous case
of Koehler and LANCE VS.. John Hill. which
was originally brought to test the validity of
the amendment to the constitution forbid
ding the sale of intoxicating liquor, which
was adopted by popular vote last summer.
1t will be remembered that at its January
session the court, sustaining decision OF the
court below, decided that in the adoption of
the amendment in the course of its passage
through the Legislature, and before it was
submitted to the people, the forms pre-
scribed by the constitution tor such
cases were not strictly complied with
and that, therefore, the amendment
was illegal and void. This decision
caused great dissatisfaction among
the friends of the amendment, and a petition
for rehearing of the case was soon submitted.
AT the Council Bluffs session of the court,
few weeks ago, that petition was granted and
the April term fixed upon for the rehearing
The chief grounds urged for reopening the
case were the discovery of new evidence that
the prescribed forms had been complied
with. and that the court had no jurisdiction
in the case whatever. These, of course, were
the points particularly urged by the counsel
for the amendment to-day There is bright
and distinguished array of legal talent on
both sides, the amendment being supported
by the Hon. John f. Duncomb, of Fort
Dodge; the Hon. J. A. Harvey, Judge C. c.
Nourse, Senator James f. Wilson and Attor-
ney-general Mcpherson, and the. opposition
being led by State Senator John C. Bills and
exUnited States Senator George G. Wright.
Mr., Duncomb made the first argument for
the validity of the amendment to-day. He
urged that previous decision OF the Iowa
Supreme Court was in favor of the theory
that it had no jurisdiction in case where
the will of the people had been properly ex-
pressed and certified that the Eighteenth
General Assembly (the one in which it is
claimed that the fatal mistake was made in
enrolling the amendmen) complied in every
particular with the requirements oil the con
sttution in manner and form, as well as in
substance; that the method of entry upon
the journals of a constitutional amendment
proposed is for each House to determine. Its
a prerogative of each house that the Nine
teenth General Assembly that is. the one
succeeding the body in which the mistake
was made, were the sole Judges Of the legal
lty and fitness of the proposed amendment
under the express terms OF the constitution.
As by an express constitutional provision the
amendment was referred to them for that
purpose it was impossible for them to avoid
acting upon the fitness and the legality of
the amendment at the same time, and that
therefore the jurisdiction of the nineteenth
General Assembly is exclusive; that no law
common or statute, and no constitutional
provision has ever given the District Court
in which the case was first decided, any juris-
diction over the question of altering the con-
stitution; and that the Supreme Court has
no jurisdiction if the District Court had
none; that the head of the political power of
the State has proclaimed the amendment
part OF the constitution, and his procama-
ton is absolutely binding.
After Mr.. Duncombe had finished. Judge
c. c. Nourse, of Des Moines, commenced his
argument. He devoted himself almost ex-
clusively to the question of jurisdiction. He
urged that the Supreme Court had no right
to take cognizance of the processes by which
acts we're completed, but only the completed
acts themselves; that the only question was
as to whether the portion of the constitution
of Iowa now in debate be in legal existence,
and that the question could only be settled
by the people They mad already settled it
beyond mistake, and their will was supreme.
At this point Chief Justice Day and Mr..
Nourse got into lively discussion as to
whether the will OF the people would be alb
solute in all cases, and when Nourse declared
that even in the case of revolution it would