Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-01-10
that these amendments be upheld. !"

that these amendments be upheld"
No doubt a fitting reason.
State vs.. Herried, determined by
the supreme court of South Dakota,
July IA. 1897, and reported in N. w.
Reporter SO, is one of the most recent
decisions on that line.
The issues arose over an effort to
amend the constitution, providing for
state control of institutions of learn
ing. The provision in their constitu-
ton for Its amendment is much like
Iowas.
After review Of the authorities on
the question, the court says:
1.-THE conflict in the adjudication
results from an adversely of opinion
regarding the meaning of the phrase
enter on their journals as used in
the several state constitutions, in ref
erence to proposed amendments. The
decisions cannot be reconciled. 1t is
perhaps proper to conclude that there
IS slight preponderance of author.
ity in favor of the Identifying of ref
erence theory"
The court then proceeds to COM
ment on the fact that most of the
cases holding that way were deter
mined before their constitution was
adopted in 1885 and argue that if the
trainers of the constitution for their
state had desired they could have
made the language more definite, and
express themselves as feeling bound
by such historical fact
These cases include the leading
cases holding contrary to Iowa law
and relied on by respondent, and in
each it will be observed some reason
is sought to be given for SO determin-
ing, caused or influenced by local or
Interstate conditions that are pecu-
liarly applicable to themselves. An
thorities, both of elementary writer's
and decisions from states are numer-
GUS and not wanting in number or
extent of comment, to sustain the
Iowa law. Among those this court
has examined are:
Jamison on Constitutional Conyen.
lions.
Cooley on Constitutional Limita-
tions.
Other states that have held the
same as Iowa may be cited:
Oakland VS. Hilton, 18th Pacific Rep.
8 (CaD.
Thompson VS.. Ashworth, 14th Pa.
cific Reporter 615.
State VS.. Mason, Southron 776
Gouisiana).
In Re-Senate File, Al Northwestern
931 (Nebraska.)
Durfee VS.. Harper, Sc Pacific Re.
porter 562, (Montana.)
State VS.. Tuff1e, IL Pacific Reporter
685, (Nevada.)
Collier VS.. Frierson, "a Ala. 10S.
State VS.. McSeall, 4th Mo. 300.
Wells VS.. Balm, 76 Pa. State 80.
These cases, or most of them, are
directly in point and the language
quoted from koehler VS.. Hill is fire.
quently commented on and approved
in all recent cases.
Concluding therefore: And always
bearing in mind that we are constru-
ing Iowa law, we are unable to COM
prehend how any jurist can arise
from an examination of these authori-
ties and feel that the amendment I'M
der consideration was either legally
submitted by the legislature of
Iowa, or legally adopted by the peo-.
pie. From these conclusions we find
no escape.
The court concludes therefor: That
the proposed amendment, known as
Joint Resolution No. 1, being Joint
Resolution proposing to amend the
constitution SO as to provide for BIZ
ennial elections was not legally adopt
ed and is now no part of the consti-
| tuition of Iowa.
| From the foregoing opinion it will
be found necessary to pass on the
second question propounded.
| 1t follows therefore:
That an order will be entered in
this court overruling the demurrer of
respondent and on his failure to plead
further will entitle the relator to an
order from this court establishing
him in the Office of county attorney
| for Washington county, Iowa.. for
term beginning January Z, 1901.
1t is SO ordered,
A. R. DEWEY, Judge.