The Oskaloosa herald., 1901-01-10
DEWEY'S OPINION.
Holds that the Titus Amendment
is Invalid.
special to sAs 4

DAoNA Va LONo - 1ASA w 20
aside the Titus Amendment at 2:OC
o'clock this afternoon, on the ground
that the amendment was not legally
Submitted by the legislature and was
not legally adopted, and is now nc
part Of the constitution of Iowa.
Senator George M. Titus, of Mus,
eatine, author of the bill, and other
leading officials of the state were
here and the court room was crowd.
ed.
The decision of this case is far.
reaching, and affects substantially
every office.holder in the state OF
Iowa. The attention Of the whole
state has been directed toward this
case, and the action of the court
here. Everyone has been anxiously
awaiting its outcome, The leading
officials of the state were determined
TO make this the test case above all
others, for the testing of the Titus
Amenment providi ng for biennial
elections. The case was planned
some some time ago by Attorney
General Remley, Acknowledgement
elect M~ullan, add Hon. Geo. M. III
tus, of Muscatine, the author of the
measure; and the agreement then
was, that it should be submitted to
Judge A. R. Dewey at the opening of
the January term of court here to-
day. Consequently, when the court
opened Mr.. Marsh w. Bailey, county
attorney elect, of Washington, called
the attention Of the court to the fact
that Mr.. s. W. Brookhart, the old
county attorney, had refused to give
up the office; Mr.. Bailey asked the
court that he be permitted to file a
petition in quo snGTrGntO, and prose-
cute it in the name of the state in
order to GUST Mr.. Bookhart from the
office of county attorney. Having
received permission of Judge Dewey
to do so, he at INC filed the petition,
emitting the case: estate of Iowa,
or rel, Marsh w. Bailey, plaintiff,
vs.. 8. W. Blookhart, defendant"
which petition recited that the re-
lator had been elected county attor-
ney of Washington county, at the
general election November 4, 1900;
that he had qualified for the office
as required by law; that he had made
demand upon the defendant to turn
over the office, but he refused, claim
ing that his term of Office had been
extended one year by the Titus
Amendment.
To this petition, Mr.. Brookhart
waived time, and Immediately filed a
demurrer, admitting the facts of the
petition, but claiming that his term
of office was extended by the Titus
Amendment, and that consequently
he was entitled to hold over another
year. The arguments had all been
prepared in writing and had been
submitted to Judge Dewey, so that
he was fully advised and had put his
opinion in writing.
In their arguments both parties APP
peared for themselves, and contend
ed that there were two questions in
the case:
First-Has the amendment been
legally and constitutianally adopted?
Second-If valid, does it extend
the Office of county attorney?
Mr.. Bailey ~contended that the
Amendment had not been proposed
as required by the provisions of the
constitution for it's own amendment,
in that the record did not show that
the identical amendment submitted
to the electors had been agreed to
by the 9th General Assembly; and
not only that, but the House of the
27th General Assembly had not en-
tered the amendment on it's journal
at length, and taken the yeas and
nays thereon as required by the con.
stitution; and claimed that the case
at bar was similar to the prohibition
amendment case, in which an amend,
ment establishing prohibition
throughout the had been declared to
have not become a part of the con-
stitution of Iowa, because it had not
been entered on the journal of the
House of the General Assembly, and
had been entered wrongly on the
other.
In reply to this, Mr.. Brookhart
contended that so far as this point in
the case is concerned, the Supreme
Court in the prohibition case had
commented ON this question, but
preceded all that was said by the
statement; that the action in the case
at bar was not necessary to the deter
mination of the prohibition case, and
that these comments were mere dicts
and not binding on the court here.
He said that an examination of the
authorities show that Nevada and
Montana are the only states that
have followed the Iowa prohibition
case, while Kansas, Nebraska, South
Dakota, Colorado, California and
Maryland have held that proposed
amendments do not have to be spread
at length on the journal, but that an
entry by number, title or identifying
reference is all that is required by
the constitution, and that oil account
of the weight of the authority being