The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1901-01-10
The Fl '1lrcAl.
Judge Dewey. at Washington. Ia, Renders Decis
ion Against Famous Law
FINDS 1T WAS NOT LAWFULLY ADOpTEn

particulars to set out in the records 81
its proceeds any ENTRY on its journal,
OF such offered amendment as PROMISED
by the senate. So much of the areu.
ment on this branch of the case is di.
rected to the necessity Of this entry in
iull OF such proposed amendment ON
their journals that We pause for its con.
sideration.
I'm considering this question it is
we'll for us to bear in mind at all times
that We are not constituting statute. or
constitutional provision as applicable
to statute, but the construction of a
constitutional provision as applying to
itself; and seeking to amend itself; one
Of the most vital provisions of that i'm.
portant, and to the people almost sa.
cred instrument.
III courts shall permit loose and
relaxed construction to be placed on
this all-important provision, of an all.
important fundamental law, which the
law writer's characterize as s'The great
character by which the sovereign people
establish and maintain government, ,
then, indeed are we drifting on the
shoals of danger and destruction.
THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION.
From the provisions Of the law it.
self this expression entered on their
journals could in no sense be construed
to mean anything but what it so plain
ly expresses, i. e., to set forth in full,
as the law nowhere else provides for it's
preservation, and for the sole reason
that the world could know from some
land in this case only authentic source
what the legislature asked the people to
amend. If this is not true then the
court asks with propriety, where could
the enquirer go for substantial lnforma.
ton? Not to the rolls; there is none
provided for. Not to the caption or title
of the act, because the law makes no
provision for either capital or title.''
Judge Dewey discussed several similar
cases at length, notably Koehler VS..
Hill, go Iowa, 543 ct sec., or commonly
the prohibition case" He also spoke
of the Kansas prohibitory case which
was decided in February, 1881, two
years before the decision in Iowa, and
said:
"As shown in the opinion, our court
had this case before them at the deter
mination Of the case of Kohler vs. Hill,
but refuses to adopt or approve the
same, on the point herein decided.
"But if Kansas courts are content
with that construction of.the law, then
we will be content, but SO emphatic is
the law otherwise in Iowa, that it can.
not be disregarded.
FINDING OF THE COURT.
After quotations from similarly cases
and the decision Of the supreme court,
Judge Dewey said;
eve do not find space to quote fur
ther, but leave the profession to read
for themselves. None the less 80 are
the able and telling arguments pro-
duced by the eminent jurist, Day, in
opinion written, and authorities cited,
on rehearing.
elf they be dicta, they are dicta
oEo99tsd by able thought, clear rea-
->-.S
soning and convincing argument, and
rise to the height of most sound and
substantial law.
$50 we have as conclusion of Iowa
law that when the constitution provid-
ing for its own amendment said such
proposed amendment shall be en-
tered on the journals it meant it said
and shall be entered at length.
"The trainers of the constitution SO
intended it. The text of the constitu-
ton providing for amendments so ex-
presses it. Our own courts have SO
construed it. With these this court is
content"
The decision of the cases now under
\ 4