Omaha daily bee., 1901-02-02
AWAkENS IOWA CANDIDATES
Decision Against Biennial Elections Opens
the Political Campaign.
QUICKLY CHANGES POLITICAL SITUATION
state Officers aud Legislature aud
County Officers Interested-Amcnd-
ment Declared Not Adopted
Court Finds Defects Fatal.


DEs MONIES, Feb. Special THE
announcement of the Iowa supreme court
that the Titus amendment providing for BIZ
ennial elections in Iowa was not properly
placed before the people for adoption came
as "A distinct shock to the people OF the
state, Notwithstanding that public sent-
ment was divided on the question OF the
wisdom OF the measure and good lawyers
disagreed on the law points.
The supreme court sustains Judge Dewey
in the Washington county test case ald de-
cides the amendment to be not part OF
the constitution. The line Of reasoning
follows CLOSELY ,he decs on in the celebrated
prohibitory amendment case. in which II
was decided that the plan Of putting an
amendment to the constitution before the
people must be followed literally and ex-
actly, and any defect therein would invali-
date it,
This leaves the state right where IL was
before the amendment was proposed II
causes instant revolution in the political
situation in the state. with the amendment
declared valid the year would he dull one
in Iowa, for II would be the first year since
statehood without state election or a
county election. But the decision means that
there will be state election this year TO
elect governor lieutenant governor super
intendent OF public instruction, one railroad
commissioner and one member of the SUI
preme court; also to elect a new legislature
including all the representatives and half
the senators. and in every county about
half the county officers.
Means Political Activity.
Up TO the present time It has been either
accepted that there would be no election
this year or a disposition has been shown
at least 10 hold off until the amendment was
passed upon. All the political discussion to
the present time has been informal and un-
authorized Now 1t will begin in earnest.
The state committees will meet soon to call
the state conventions. The wires will be
laid by the various candidates. and the year
promises to be an unusually interesting one
in politics.
IL has been assumed by many that Gov
ernor Shaw, who has made an exception
1 ally good governor, would be urged for n
third term in case there is to be an elec-
| tion. and 1t is hnted that his friends wa mt
| to keep him in line for higher places, but
thus far he has given no indication OF his
plans. He is in Chicago now where he will
address a meeting of the Epworth league on
Sunday. What his views are. are known by
nobody save himself.
But there are other candidates for the
governorship. Senator Hartman Of Hamp-
| ton is a pronounced candidate, and there
| has been talk OF A. b. Cummins OF Des
| Moines George u. Perkins OF Sioux City,
| A. B. Funk of Spirit Lake, John Herriott
Of Stuart and. in case he should return
from China. Of Edwin II. Conger Of this
| city. An effort has been made to induce
| Lieutenant Governor Miliman of Logan
to come out as a candidate, but he says he
| is not a candidate.
| For superintendent of public instruction
! Prof. r. C. Barrett of Usage will likely
| ask third term, as that is customary IN
this state, but James Brenton OF Des
| Moines is already In the field, and there
| VIII be number of other candidates.
| Welcome Mowry OF Cedar Falls will be
| renomlnated for railroad commissioner. For
| Judge OF the supreme court there will be
| many candidates TO succeed Chief Justice
| Given OF this county. who will not ask an
other term. Judge Bishop OF Des Moines
| Is candidate.
| The Decision.
The case before the supreme court on
| which the amendment was decided void
was that of Marsh W. Bailey against J. s
| Brookhart, from Washington county. a suit
| In which the newly elected county attorney
| sought TO oust the old county attorney. who
| claimed his right to hold over another year
| on account OF defect in the amendment
which had been adopted Although IL was
a suit primarily on the Interpretation OF
the defect, the entire amendment was in
volved
Judge Dewey held the amendment in.
| Ual IA
construe its meaning. In Cherokee count,
! Judge Hutchinson, in a similar case. held
the opposite Both cases came before the
court, and were argued orally and in
printed briefs by the best lawyers of tn,
state. The decision was by the courts anc
was unanimous The court holds that tho
decision in the Koehler case involving th,
prohibitory amendment in Iowa. covered
the question OF the method OF adoptin,
amendments entirely. that the method laiC
down In the constitution must be followed
that the failure of the clerk OF the hous,
or the Twenty-seyenth general assembl,
10 spread in full upon the records tn,
proposed amendment but merely referred
to 1t by name or title, was, in fact, a fata
defect, hence the amendment is of no fore,
now. The court, in view OF this decision
did not find it necessary to construe tn,
meaning OF the amendment. The conclusio,
OF the court was as follows:
| The conclusion, therefore, expressed n
| thlS court In the koehler case is not die
tum, but Is decision. and we must eItho
follow ~ or oVerrule It. We consider tina
lnasmuch as II involves the construction q
our own constitution and has been rcCog
hlZed Tor many years as making detinIt
ana certain the method to he pursued Il
amending the constitution, II should be fol
| loWed, ANA IN conclusion, with referenC
/. TO that case, we consider that Il is not 70
US TO determine that of the two question
involved, relating to the method of amend
| ing the constitution, one only was regarde
aS decided while the other was simplv dis
cussed' The conclusion of the court as I
either one of these two questions woul
have determined the case, and one con
Clusion is as binding upon us as the Other
, Therefore, following the decision of IN
court in the koehler case, We hold that IN
, proposed amendment not having been on
tered upon the journal Of the house of In
tWenty-seNenth general assembly was No
proposed and adopted as required by ou
constitution and has not become a par
thereof
This conclusion makes It unnecessary
discuss the Interpretation Of the languag
of the amendment, and leads to the resu
that relator Is entitled 10 the office whic
A | he claims
J. History Of the Amendment.
The Titus amendment was introduce
q into the Twenty seventh general assembl
tt,,n