Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-12-06
TITUS AMENDMENT.
It Was Not Spread Upon the Jour-
nal of the House.
CONSEQUENTLY AMENDMENT IS VOID.

-
Supreme Court Decision Cited Prove
Position, Which Seem to be Well
Taken Opinion of ottumwans.
Burlington, Dec. 4.-The Hawkeye
has discovered what it claims to be a
fatal defect in the adoption by the
Iowa general assembly, of the consti-
tutional amendment providing for BIZ
ennial elections which was introduced
in that body by Senator G. M. Titus,
of Muscatine. The discovery made by
the Hawkeye is that the full text of
the amendment was not entered upon
the journal of the house of represen-
tatives on March Is, 1898 when the
amendment was adopted by the house.
The amendment was adopted by sew
enty-six yeas to four nays, and nine
teen absent or not voting. And the
record adds: So the joint resolution
passed and the title was agreed to.
But the journal does not contain the
alleged Substitute for substitute for
senate joint resolution" etc. altho the
constitution specifically provides, in
terms which the supreme court has
held to be mandatory, that "such pro-
posed amendment shall be entered on
their journals "-not one house only,
but each of the two houses"
The next recorded action in the
house was March %, when the COM
mitee on enrolled bills reported Sub
stitute for substitute for joint resolu-
ton No. l, joint resolution proposing
to amend the constitution of the state
of Iowa SO as to provide for biennial
elections"
Ordered passed on file.
March 10 the house notified the SEN
ate of its action.
March % he senate committee on
enrolled bills reported the joint reso-
luton correctly enrolled. Ordered
passed on file.
And thus the record was made UP
and the joint resolution was formerly
handed down to the next general as
sembly, which apparently observed
every necessary step in it's passage
and presentation. The fatal defect is
the failure to comply with the explicit
mandate, of the constitution to spread
in full upon the journal of the house
the resolution as finally adopted by
that body-an error beyond remedy.
1uc CONSTITUTION says.
Article 10, Sec. Amy amendment
or amendments to this constitution
may be proposed in either house Of
the general assembly, and if the same
shall be agreed to by a majority of
the members elected to each of the
two houses, such proposed amendment
SHALL BE ENTERED ON THEIR
JOURNALS with the yeas and nays
taken thereon, ETC., etc.
In the famous case of koehler &
LANCE VS.. Hill, involving the so-calIed
prohlOltory amendment of the consti.
tuition the supreme court of Iowa in
1888 declared the amendment null and
void. The syllabus of the decision is
interesting because pertinent to the
present conditions attaching to the I'll.
tus amendment.
1. 1T is necessary that the
several houses of the general assem-
bly, which first proposes an amend
ment to the constitution, cause the
same to be entered at length
upon their respective journals
with the yeas and nays
taken thereon" chat journal is
4 the primary and best evidence of the
proposed amendment
2. The recital in joint resolution by
the succeeding general assembly is
& not conclusive upon the courts. Where
the eighteenth general assembly pro
posed an amendment to the constitu
ton, recital of such amendment by
the nineteenth general assembly is no
conclusive upon the courts as to the
form of such amendment as originally
proposed nor as to whether the eigh
teenth general assembly actually
agreed to the same in the manner re
CURED by the constitution; and sucf
recital does not preclude and estop the
courts, in a proper case, from exam
lining the journals of the eighteenth
general assembly, to ascertain wheth
er or not the amendment, as originally
proposed, was in fact the same as tina,
Tecited and agreed to by the nine
teenth general assembly, and whether
or not it was legally and constitution
ally agreed to by the eighteenth gen
eral assembly"
3. Where an amendment to the
constitution proposed by the eigh
teenth general assembly was not en-
tered at length upon the journal o
the house, as required by article 10
section /, of the constitution; !
held, that the amendment SO submit
ted to the electors did not become
part Of the constitution, notwithstand
ing it was approved by large major
ity of the yolers."
This opinion had the approval Of al
tie justices excepting Beck, VIII, dis
scented.
Senator w. A. McIntire.
Senator w. A. McIntire, when toll
of the alleged flaw discovered in tn
house record, in reference to the vali6
ity of the Titus amendment, said: 81
is a new phase of the question to me
there have been SO many rumors Q
flaws, errors, mix-ups, and so on, that
got SO paid little attention to then
believing that the supreme cour
when the matter would be referred t
it, would decide in keeping with tn
intent of the legislature and of tn
people who voted for its adoption. ]