Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-01-10

jcOmpllSned is considered, we think
there isNno doubt that it is the design
and intent of the constitution that
proposed amendment thereto should
be entered in the journal that it can
lbe known, by an examination of the
Journals. what it was that has been
tagreed to by each house of the Cen
eral Assembly which first acts there
on. to the end that the succeeding
General Assembly may certainly know
what it's predecessor did.
ut seems to us that a simple enter
ing on the journal of the title of
object of proposed amendment does
not accomplish the intent of the con-
stitution, and the thought that this is
so is much strengthened when regard
is had to all the provisions of the con-
stitution. That instrument provides
that upon the final passage of a bill
the yeas and nays must be taken, and
the same entered upon the journal.
Ihls necessitates the entering on the
journal the title or substance of the
bill to be voted upon. This being SO,
If not more than this was intended in
relation to a constitutional amend
ment, the provision as to entering it
on the journal is unnecessary and
meaningless. There is no provision
requiring a bill to be entered on the
Journal, but the constitution does re-
lqulre that proposed amendment
thereto shall be entered on the jour
nails with the yeas and nays
This must mean that the amend
ment shall be spread at length there
on, and the yeas and nays set out in
the journal in full or at length, No
distinction between the two can pos.
s1bly be drawn. Amendments to the
!; constitution were proposed in the
eleventh general assembly, some of
which We're agreed to but all were
spread at length on the journal. The
amendments afterwards ratified by
the elections, striking out the word
white where it occurred in the con-
stitution, were among the amend
ments proposed at that session. These
amendments were spread at length
upon the journals of both houses
Here we have legislative construc-
ton of the constitution which should
not and cannot be ignored
We do not find space to quote fur
Their, but leave the profession to read
for themselves. None the less so are
the able and telling arguments pro-
IT,, ".
in opinion written, and authorities
cited on rehearing.
If they be dicta, they are dicta
prompted by able thought, clear rea-
soning and convincing argument, and
rise to the height of most sound and
substantial law
So we have as conclusion of
Iowa law that when the constitution
providing for it's own amendment
said, such proposed amendment Shall
be entered on the journals it meant
what it said and shall be entered at
length
The trainers of the constitution so
intended it.
The text of the constitution provid-
ing for amendments SO expresses it.
Our own courts have SO con-
strued it.
With these this court is content.
Going without the pale of our own
state for light on this subject, we find
the authority in other states some
what diversified, tho the greater con-
census of opinion appears to follow in
the wake of Iowa law as hereinbefore
referred to and sought to be herein
applied.
Among those who would appear to
hold otherwise may be cited:
The case much relied on by re-
spondent, reported in the oath Kan.
7O0 and known as the Prohibitory
Case, was determined Feb. %, 1881.
and the case of Koehler VS.. ill was
: determined April 81, 1883, being over
, two years after the Kansas case. AS
shown in the opinion, our court had
this case before them at the deter
mination of the case of Koehler VS..
} Hill, but refuses to adopt or approve
! the same, on the point herein de-
cided
But if Kansas courts are content
with that construction of the law,
then we will be content, but so en-
| phatic is the law otherwise in Iowa,
that it cannot be disregarded.
Without passing a criticism of our
own, we will be content with quota
lions of Oakland Paving Co. VS.. Hill
ton, California;, 18th Pacific Report
er page IL.
"The device of an Identifying refer
ence is of modern origin. 1t had its
genesis is Kansas in 1881 in the Pro
hibitory amendment cases, a. Kan
TOO which were decided by the SUI
: preme court of that state at its Janu-
airy term in the year last mentioned
The reasoning by which the learned
court reached the conclusion it did, is
not based on any sound legal princi-
pies, but contrary to them. Neither
the arguments nor the reasoning can
.. command our assent or approval.
The argument is illogical and based
on principles which are without any
sound foundation and rest merely in
assumption"
Woman VS.. Hagan, from the SUI
preme court of Maryland, determined
October 1S, 1898, and reported in At
lantic Reporter, wherein the constitu-
tionality of an amendment to the con-
stitution questioned, that sought to
provide for the election of county
commissioners, held THAT it was not
necessary that such bill be set out
verbatim on the journals of the two
houses"
In the opinion no authority is re-
ferred to except to refer to their own
law, without quotations.
This court argues that since the