Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-01-10

| directive! In two or three days the
legislature might fully discuss the
matter, and might prepare such an
amendment as the wants of the peo-
1 pie might require. They would then
place it upon their journal. The next
succeeding legislature would adopt it
and submit it to the people, and the
people would vote upon it. cannot
conceive of any way in which the
4 proposed amendment could come more
fully before the sovereign people than
in the manner proposed
The quotations are sufficient to
show the temper of members before
whom the text of this provision for
amending the constitution was con-
sidered.
The fact that the people would be
fully advised by the amendment be-
ing entered on the journals" was al
ways to the trainers of the constitu-
ton, considered bulwark of security
to the people and guaranteed to them
the sacred rights they so jealousy
sought to maintain.
In this connection we wish to no.
tice the thought urged in argument
that SO great majority of the people
of Iowa expressed themselves as de-
string the amendment in question, as
expressed at the general election in
| 1900, that the courts should not in
terfere.
4 The principal ingredient to this ar
| gument, needed to carry force, is the
fact that such condition does not
exist. By authentic record we learn
that there was cast at the general
election for the state of Iowa in No
vember, 1900, for the various candi-
date for president, 53O,355 votes.
/ The same record informs us that
: there was cast at the same election
for the constitutional
amendment. .l85, LOB votes
Against the constitution
amendment. lo5,506 votes
Total on the constitu-
tional amendment. 340,611 votes
!, The number voting on the question
falling below the number voting for
: president of 1914.
: Hence we have, voting against
the amendment .... .... .155, 500
Not voting at all on the amend
ment .......... ..... ls9,f44
Total ..... 345,2 ESQ
So we have this startling conclu-
|
} sion:
Voting for the amendment ;. 1856, 105
/ Voting against the amendment
or not voting ....... 345, 25O
: Leaving majority not voting
for the amendment of 80. 100, 145
In other words, of the number of
, electors who voted for the president
in 1900, So per cent voted for the
, amendment against IS per cent who
, did not vote for the amendment.
| 1t is true the law providing for vot-
ing on constitutional amendments pro-
Ivides that the electors voting there
on shall determine the issue. With
this we are content; but when we
, learn that only So per cent of the
ELECTORS voting at the general election
voted for the amendment it notifies
, the intense demand that "the will of
the people should be respected" And
If courts should ever permit them
selves to be influenced by the great
demand of the people in determin-
ing true legal proposition, then in
, this case the courts had better be
turning their attention to the demand
of those who did not vote for the
amendment. to be protected in their
legal and legitimate rights.
In fairness to the legal status as ex-
planned herein, may it not be a reason.
able conclusion to reach, that since
the proposed amendment had not been
legally presented to the people, such a
= great portion found themselves unin.
formed as to what action the legisla.
ture in their effort to amend the con.
stitution, desired to amend that they
either voted against any change or
withheld their votes altogether.
The Main Point.
Coming down to the question as to
: whether or not the amendment was
engrossed on the house journal in full
and if it was not what effect it would
have on the validity of the amendment
the court says:
If it is true that the house received
: the joint resolution as it did pass the
: senate, we must ask, when, where and
how? The records of the house dc
! not inform lis; the records that pur
port to disclose what they did receive
!. brands what they did receive as never
;. having received the approval of the
senate. Their assumption eighteen
days after receiving the message from
the senate, that they then possessed
as received from somewhere, an arti
Gle bearing the same title as one claim
ed to have been passed by the senate
leaves the child without a father OF
i. mother; a waif indeed.
In what has been said SO far in this
|opinion no authorities have been cited
or referred to, except the constitution
itself, with the legislation leading up
to it's adoption, and the proceedings OF
the bodies of our general assembly in
rendering the proposed amendment to
the people, and asking their approval
However, this court has been fur.
nished with liberal number of auth.
critics and able arguments by Relator
and Respondent, both brilliant law.
yers, as well as arguments by other
eminent lawyers and learned gentle.
men, for whose opinions this court has
the profoundest respect.
1t would result in too lengthy an
opinion for this court to indulge in, OF
for any purpose required of this case
at this bar to comment in full on the
numerous authorities cited as bearing
on this controversy, but a short re
view may not be untimely.
The case relied on most implicitly