Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1901-01-23
IOWA LAW HELD VOID
TITUS AMENDMENT is DECLARED
INVALID.
Every Office in the State A tfected by the
Notable opinion-Espected Supreme
Court Will Affirm Judge Dcwey's De-
cision-Prcccdent Is Established.

Court Will Affirm Judge Dcwey's De-
cision-Prcccdent Is Established.
The court house in Washington was
packed when Judge A. X. Dewey of the
Sixth Iowa judicial circuit rendered his
decision on the legality of the biennial
election amendment to the State consti-
tuition, the court holding the same to be
void.
Judge Dewey bases his opinion of TO-
600 words upon the fact that the amend
ment was not submitted by the Legisla-
ture in legal form. Every politician and
office holder in the State has been await
ing the decision, for upon the result the
term OF all office holders would or would
not be extended one. year, the general
opinion being that the Supreme Court
would affirm Judge Dewey's opinion.
Text OF the Opinion.
In part the opinion says:
The reiator herein, Marsh w. Bailey, com
plains to the court and states substantially:
That at the general election held Nov u,
| 1900, he was lawfully elected county attor-
ney of Washington County, Iowa. for
| term of two years from the iirst Monday In
January, 1901.
That the proper authorty-the Board oil
| Supervisors of said county-has Issued to
| him certificate of such election, as re-
qulred by law.
The reator says that the respondent, $.
w. Brookhart, is rnlawfuly holding such
Office and exercising the functions thereof.
That said respondent proposes to occupy
said office by virtue of an election Held No
vember, 1898.
That respondent accepted and qualified
| under such election fer the term beginning
on the first Monday of January. 1899, and
ending the first Monday of January, 1901,
and that respondent has been acting as such
county attorney for that period of time by
virtue of such election in 1905.
That the respondent refuses to deliver
possession of said office to the relator.
That the sole reason for such refusal to
surrender such office to reator by respond
ent Is:
That at the general election held Nov. g.,
1900 the Constitution of the State of Iowa
was amended by vote CT the people by
adding thereto section 49, article 70, WHICH
amendment by Its terms extended the term
of office of county attorney for II term of
one year.
The relator alleges:
/. That as shown by the records and jour
nais of both the House Of Representatives
and the Senate of the Twenty Gen
eral Assembly said proposed amendment to
to the people, for that the said General AS
sembly at the twenty seventh session there
of did not comply with the constitutional re-
qulrements for proposing such amendment.
and MS evidence of such illegality and irreg-
ularity he sets out and attaches to his petit
ton certified copies of the journal entries of
their proceedings.
That as shown by the journal of said
House of Representatives the said amend
ment WIS not constitutlonally adopted and
did not become a part of the Constitution.
q The reator says further that II In truth
said constitutional amendment was legally
adopted and Is now part of the COnstitu-
ton that 1t does not, when properly con-
strued extend the term of Office of respond
ent and gives respondent no legal right to
continue in said Office after Jan. I, 1901.
In response to these allegations and COM
plants the respondent interposes his de-
murrer, thereby putting in issue the legal
effect of the matters pleaded by the reator
The Issues presented by the foregoing al
legations and conceded by the demurrer pre-
sent fairly to this court two distinct propo
sitiOnS:
/. Was the proposed amendment to the
Constitution entitled AN act to amend the
Constitution so as to provide for biennial
elections" and designated section 16 of ar
ticle Il of the Constitution, legally present.
ed and adopted, and is 1t now a part of the
Constitution?
.. If so, under the terms of such amend
ment is the re!ator entitled to the posses
| sion of the office of county attorney fer
| Washington County for the term beginning
klau.I 1901
If the first proposition be answered in the
negative then 1t dlsposes wholly of the sec
end, and hence we turn our attention direct
~ to the consideration of the first query.
The opinion then cites at length and
with , damn lnrico ton nf louo1 ,1roe
gy many Iowa and other decisions bear
ing upon the issue. Then the court says:
If these be dicta they are dicta prompted
by able thought, clear reasoning and con-
vlncing argument and rise to the height of
most sound and substantial law.
So we have rs a. conclusion of Iowa law
that when the Constitution, providing for its
own amendment said such proposed amend
ment shall be entered on the journals 1t
meant what 1t said and that it should be en-
tered at length. The trainers of the Con
stitution so intended it. The text of the
Constitution providing for amendments SO
expresses 1t. Our own courts have so con-
strucl It, With these this court is content.
The court concludes, therefore. that the
proposed amendment known as joint resoiu.
ton No. ], being joint resolution proposing
to amend the Constitution so as to provide
for biennial elections was not legally adopt
ed and is now no part OF the Constitution
l of Iowa.
1t follows, therefore, that an order will
be entered in this court overrullng the de-
murrer of respondent and on his failure to
plead further will entitle the reator to an
order from this court establishing him in
the office of county attorney for Washing
ton County, Iowa, for the term beginning
Jan. 1, 1901.
1t is so ordered.