Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-12-13
Titus Amendment May Yet Be a
Law.
PROHIBITION CASE NOT In POINT.
Another Discovery-said That the SUI
preme Court Decision Thought to be
Parallel With the Titus TangIe,
Does Not Apply.

The Titus amendment is all right,
or at least the defect recently oiscov.
cred by the Burlington Hawkeye, in
that 1t was not engrossed on the house
journal, is no defect at all. The Dav.
export Republican is responsible for
the assertions just made and explains
| it this way:
"a discovery has been made by at
torneys in this city to the effect that
the Titus amendment may still be
alive and we'll. and not null and void
as has been declared by the Burling-
ton Hawkeye and other critical OBJ
servers of that strange piece of legis-
lation. The discovery REFEREED to is
Lnar the amendment voted upon at the
last election is not defective in the
same way that the prohibition amend
ment was declared to be in 1883 by
the supreme court. The Hawkeye and
other authorities assumed that the
conditions in the two cases were iden-
teal and that the same logic and law
which nullified the prohibition amend
ment must necessarily make the Titus
amendment void. But it appears now
that the Hawkeye's reading of the
lengthy decision in the case of Koch.
Ter and Lange VS.. Hill, in 1883, was
cursory and failed to bring out the
point wherein that case, and one
which may arise over the Titus
amendment, would be different. Fol-
lowing is the decisive part of the 1883
decision:
Failure to enter upon journal; va
rance in form and substance. Where
an amendment to the constitution pro-
posed by the eighteenth general as
sembly, was not entered at length up
on the journal of the house, as requir-
ed by article x, section /, of the con-
stitution, and where it appeared, from
the journal of the senate of the eigh-
teenth general assembly, that the
amendment agreed to by the senate
was dlnerent in language and sub
stance from that agreed to, and sub
mltted to the vote of the electors by
the nineteenth general assembly; hold,
that Lne amendment so submitted to
the electors did not become a part OF
the constitution Notwithstanding it
was approved by large majority Of
the electors
What the Fatal Defect Was.
"Any careful reader of the above
win see at once that, in the opinion of
the court, the fatal defect did not con-
|sist in the fact that the prohibition
amendment was not entered upon the
journal of the house, but in the furth-
er fact that it was entered on the jour
nal Of the senate in different form and
substance from that voted upon at the
polls. Such was not the case in the
Titus amendment, however. The Ian
guage of it's entry on the journal of
the senate and the language in which
lit was ratified by the voters this fall
were the same to a dot.
Confirms Its constitutionality.
Briefly stated, the prohibition
amendment was decided to be null
and void by the Iowa supreme court
because, as entered in the senate jour
nal, it was different from when it was
adopted at the polls. The Titus
amendment fully meets the very test
of constitutionality, which was applied
to the prohibition amendment with ia
tai consequences to the latter. The
rulings of the supreme court in 1888
would seem, therefore, to confirm the
constitutionality of the Titus amend
ment rather than throw doubt upon it.
at is now up to the Hawkeye to ex-
plain why it does not keep its specta-
cles on when it is searching for sure
enough ScOODSn