The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1883-04-27
IOWA PROHIBITION.
The Supreme Court Reafirms It's
Former Decision Against the
Prohibition Amendment,
Justice Beck Dissents, Denying the Right
Of the Court to Pass Upon this Po-
litical Question.
Good Bye. Amendment.

| lltlcal Question.
| Good Bye. Amendment.
The Supreme Court of Iowa. Satur
day, announced Its opinion in tn,
prohibitOry amendment case, adher
ing TO the former opinion and over
ruling the petition for a rehearing
Beck dissenting. The majority opin
ion is by Day, chief justice. and i.
very long, covering some eighty
pages of legal cap.
The question of the courts jurisdic
tion is deliberately considered. and tn,
case of Luther vs.. Borden, upor
which the appellants mainly relied a,
the rehearing, is considered ut length
1t is shown that case involved
the question as to the right of a
court holding its powers under a con.
stitution under which it is itself or.
ganized, and that it has no application
whatever to an amendment not affect.
ing the judicial authority of the
courts that the right of 4 people to
alter or reform their government at
pleasure consists simply in the right
to change the existing constitution in
the manner provided in it or by revo.
luton, which is right not under but
above the constitution that the right
of revolution can be made effective
only by superior force, and that fail
IRE subjects those undertaking to in.
augurate the change to the penalties
of treason that unless voluntary &C
quiescence is yielded to a proposed
change in the constitution the question
can DO determined only by an appeal
to the courts or an appeal to arms, and
the maintenances of social security
and of republican institutions requires
that the courts determine the ques.
ton. The opinion maintains that
this jurisdiction has been exercised
in the seven States of Alabama, Mis-.
sour, Kansas, Indiana. Michigan,
North Carolina and Wisconsin and
has been denied in none. "It is well
that the powers of the people and
their relations to organized society
should be understood. No heresy has
ever been taught in this country 80
fraught with evil as the doctrine that
the people have a constitutional right
to disregard the constitution, and that
they can set themselves above the in.
strumentalities appointed by the con-
for the administration of
law. 1t tends directly to tile encOur.
agement of revolution and anarchy.
1t is incumbent upon all who influence
and mold public opinion to repuiiate
and discountenance so dangerous Il
doctrine before it bears fruit destruc.
tive to republican institutions. 1t
will be well IL the people come to
understand the difference between
national and constitutional freedOm
before license becomes destructive of
liberty" AS to the cOnclusiveness
of the recital of the nineteenth gen.
eral assembly that the eighteenth gen.
cral assembly had duly agreed to and
entered upon its journals the same
resolution that the nineteenth general
assembly was about to submit to the
people, the court holds that there is
in the constitution or the
statute or the nature of the subject
the recital conclusive; that
the district court is a court of general
jurisdiction until the contrary is
shown and that the burden is upon
those who deny that the jurisdiction
of the court extends to inquiry into
this recital to establish that fact, and
that they have failed to do so; that
the jurisdiction Of the nineteenth gen.
eral assembly to submit the PROPOSE.
ton to the people depended upon the
fact that the eighteenth general as.
sembly had agreed to the same propo
sitiOn, and that the nineteenth could
not stop the courts from inquring into
this jurisdictiOnal fact by mere
recital that the fact exists, especially
as the journal of the eighteenth gen.
eral assembly, which is the constitu.
tiol al record ofits proceedings, shows
that the fact did not exist. The court
maintains that even the action of a
court is void and liable to be collater.
ally impeached if its records show
that the facts upon which its juris.
diction depends do not exist. After
u fuller review of the authorities cited
upon this branch of the case. the court
closes this point of the opinion as fol.
lows 1.-THE constitution makes three
steps necessary for the adoption of an
viz, the proposal Of an
in one general assembly
and its entry upon the journals; the
agreement thereof by the next gen.
eral assembly and its submission to
the people and the approval and
thereof ny the people.
These steps are distinct. independent
and essential. M one Of them can
be dispensed with. 1t is necessary
that the proposition shall be concur.
red in by two successive general as.
semblies. If, however, one general
assembly can cut off all inquiry into
the action of its predecessor by a
mere recital Of what it has done, it
follows that an amendment may be
into the constitution
which has never received the sanction
of more than one general assembly.
Such a construction might lead to a
clear violation of the constitution. |
We cannot give it our sanction. Upon
the question as to whether the resOlu- |
ton us enrolled is better evidence Of
the legislative action than the resolu.
ton entered upon the journal of the
senate of the eighteenth general rs.
this court holds that the con-
stitutiOn requires each house of the |
general assembly to keep journal Of
Ira nrocaedin0. and the statute prO. |