Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1901-01-03
TITUS AMENDMENT
WILL Be UPHELD
Now Believed the Supreme Court
Will Hold That 1t Is Corr
stitutional.
TO IGNORE TECHNICAL DEFECTS
In.imated the Court VIII Take a Broad
View of the Cause.-The Prohibitory
Amendment Action Has No
Bearing Question.

Des Moines, Ia, Jan. 3.--The Titus
amendment is going to be sustained by
the supreme court. This is the opinion
which prevails at the state house.
among state officers and the leading
politicians. There has been great
reaction. in the last fortnight. from the
amendment has been hopelessly
botched and lost. On the other hand.
lawyers themselves, who have looked
into the matter With the view to de-
termining what the court ought to do,
are of opinion it viii sustain the
amendment, and give it the common
sense construction. That is. it is held
that the court will hold that the de-
feet, if there was one, in the house roc
ord of the Twenty seventh general as
sembly, was not fatal; and this much
decided it will construe the law to ex-
tend the terms of those officers whose
regular tWo-years terms would expire
with the year 1901
Has "a Tip Been Given Out:
SO confidently is this position main
tanned that 1T is suggested IN some
quarters that Attorney General Remley
and others concerned have Il tip from
the supreme court Members of the
supreme court are human, like great
many other people; they have human
characteristics, and among these eXpe-
riencc has shown that in the present
court there is a strong antagonism to
mere technicalism. Attorney General
Remley has arranged for the test case
to be tried first, on agreed statements
and evidence. before Judge A. II. Dew
ey in Washington county. From him it
Will go at once to the supreme court.
Judge Dewey'S opinion is known to be
written already; the whole proceeding
before him will be purely formal At
tofney General Remley knows What
Judge Dewey will decide, but he has not
been willing to announce it for publica-
ton. On Capitol Hill, however. rumol
is That Judge Dewey will sustain the
measure and that he has excellent real
son to believe the supreme court will
not reverse him. Whether amy MEM
Ders OF the supreme court have talked
ABOUT the case is not stated: if they
had talked it would not be stated.
Tho Prohibition Case.
There is lars distinction between.
the prohibition case and the present
case The prohbitory amendment was
Knocked out because all the evidence
showed that there was a difference be-
tween the measure passed by the legis-
lature-or by one legislature-and that
voted ON by the people. The court
could not get at the intent OF The
measure because one body seemed to
have meant one thing and another to
have meant Il different thing In the
present case. the evidence may not be
quite complete. but all the evidence
there is indicates that both legislatures
and the people voted on exactly the
same proposition. And therein is a
vast difference 1t is se large a differ
elce that the supreme court need never
refer to the prohibition case us i'm any
way concerning this one, If it does not
choose to make such reference in order
to point out these differences. There is
no Inconsistency involved in sustaining
the present measure. The notion some
people have had, that to sustain this
amendment would complicate the pro-
hlbltion question is utterly wrong.
Not Very Smart, But Still Sane.
The object of adjudication is to set at
the intent of the legislature and the
people. What, did they intend to do in
enactlng this measure? The evidence
must be examined, and all the evidence
leads to the same conclusion. There
is no conflict in it. II shows that the
people wanted biennial elections i'm
stead of annual. and that they meant
to arrive at that result With the least
possible friction and trouble. That
would be accomplished by extending
the terms of officers expiring with the
year 1901. 1t would be Utterly illogi-
cal to extend the terms of officers for
whom no successors We're provided.
and to allow another set to have their
terms expire without any successors
being provided.
In short, the supreme court is not
presumed to show that the legislators
We're Very smart, but it is allowed. in
all the premises, to assume that they
were sane. And 1T is going to decide
that way unless all present information
is ut fault