Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-01-08
Special to Tfmes-R epnbl.can.

Special to Tfmes-R republican.
Washington, Ia, Jan. s. .Jtl sc: a. R.
Dewey. of the Sixth judicial district OF
Iowa, ruled to set aside ths TITUS
aimensanent at p. M. tqaay. on the
ground that the amendryent was not
legally submitted BY she legislature
and was not legally 6,ed and is snoIw
no part of the conss isntion of iowa.
Senator George, NJ. Titus, of Mueca-
tine. and other leading officials, of the
state were there and the court room
was crsMded.
Th9s decision Of this case is far
rea16ing and affects substantially
evay 81 office holder III the state of Iowa.
attention Of the whole stats has
b n directed toward this case aud the
q tion of the court here. Eve.y one
as been anxiously awaiting lis OUT
Tome. The leading officials of tt,e state
were determined to make this ths con-
s test case above all Others for the test.
Ing of the Titus amen rnent providing
for biennial elections Tie case was
planned some TIME ago by Attorney
General Remley. Attorney Geaeral-
elect Mullan and Hon. George NJ
Titus, "a e.lscatine,s the author Of the
: measure, and the a greemerf thea was
s that 1t should be submitted to Judge
"a r. Dewey 1.-THE opening OF nee.
January term OF court mere today
Consequently when the court opened
MI. Marsh w. Bailey, county attorneys
+. eject of Was sh'sssgtcn county chiind the
attention or the court to the fact that.
Mr.. 8. 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 warranto and prosecute it in the
nane of the state in order TO Dust Mr.
Brookhart from the Office Of county att
torney. Having received sperrniseion Of
Judge Dewey 10 ds, so, he q once flied
the petition, emitting the case STATE
OF Iowa ex rel, Marsh w i3ailey.
Plaintiff. vs.. s w. B;ookhart, Defend
ant, which petition recitea til.t The
relator had been elected county atto,-
ney at the general election Mower Der
8, 1900; that he had qualified for the Of
flee as required by iflw:s that he had.
made demand upon the defen Sant 10,
turn over the office. but he refused,
claiming that his term of office had
besn extended one year by the Titus.
Amendment. To this petition Mr..
Brookhart waived time and Immediate
~ filed demurrer, admitting the facte
of the petition. bu. claiming that his
tenn of Office was EXTENDED by the
Titus amendment and that consequent
1y he was entitled to hold over another
year. The arguments had all be.n pre-
~r.. 4 L. t.~,.s %..s~. l. l..
ted to Judge Dewey, so that he was
fully advised ard haliput his opinion in
writing.
peared for themselves am, commended
case:
FIrst-Has the amendment been le-
galiy and cons;itutonally adoptea?
Second-If valid, docs 1t extend the
Office Of county attorney?
Mr.. Bailey cont ended that the amend
nient had not been proposed as required
ty the provisions eff the constitution for
its own amendment in that the recort.
Gid not show that the Identical amend
lnent submtitedl to the electors had been
agreed to by the Twenty seventh gen
oral assembly, and not only that, but
the house of the Twenty y-saventh gen
.eral assembly had not entered the
$ amendment on It's journal at length, and
taken the yeas and nays thereon. as re-
.qufred by the constitutions; and claimed
that the case at bar was similar to the
prohibition amendment case, in which
an amendment establishing prohibition
fhruout the state had been declared TO
ave not become part OF the constitu-
(. ton OF Iowa, because 1t had not bee,,
entered on the journal of one house of
the general assembly, and had been en-
tered wrongly on the other. In reply TO
this. Mr.. Brookhart contended that so
Tar as this point in the case was con-
ccrned, the supreme court in the prohi-
lition case had commented on this uues-
ton, but preceded all that was said by
y the statement, and that the action in
the case at bar was not necessary to a
determination of the prohibition case
and that these comments We're mere die
ia and not binding on the court here. He
Z said that an examination of the al-
sthorlties shows that Nevada and Mon
tina are the only states that have fol-
loved the Iowa prohibition case, while
Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colo
.ado, California and Maryland have
feld that proposed amendments do not
have to be spread at length on the jour
nal. but that an entry by number. title
cr identifying reference is all that is re-
CURED by the constitution, and that on
account Of the weight OF the authority
Icing in favor of an entry by title or
otherwise the validity Of the amendment
ought to be sustained. As against this
argument. the relator claimed that the
constitutions Of Iowa and Nevada were
differen from those OF the states upon
which the defendant relied. because the
levs and Nevada constitutions require