Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-01-08

) Ask1Aess.t .sss sAsesA2 : ~
authorities cited as bearing on this
controversy. but a short review may
not be untimely.
The case relied on most Implicitly
by the relator, from Iowa, is Kuehler
VS.. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543 ct seq, a case
Which at the time it was ailmunciated.
probably caused the people of the state
of Iowa to become more deeply inter-
cstea thai in any charactvrof litigation
ever presented 10 iowa's court OF lasa
resort.
This case was otherwise known as
the Prohibition case, wherein the le-
gality of an amendment TO the cpnsti-s
tuition was involved, prohibiting the
sale of Intoxicating liquors In the state.
In writing the opinion in that CAGE,
prepared by that honest high minded
thinker, that able. intelligent and fear
less jurist Judge Sewers. the writer
sets forth in telling terms the wisdeln
of constituting the language used in the
constitution herein controveitea ard
defended it V sorously in the line az
Thought formerly EXPRESSED herein.
The opinion in this case is so re-
lplste authorizations. comments and a 6
fectiTe conclusions that to 10 Justice 10
quotations We Would be compelled d
|sauote al great length.
| -After citing Cooley On Constitutional
Limitation and LITERALLY quoting there
tsfroln. the writer says
&. W1hen the Object ntenaetssto be a.
con- pi.sheli is considered. we think
| tlere is no doubt that it is the design
aud intent OF the CONSTITUTION that I,
proposed ans ndmenit thereto should be
entered in the Journal that IL ean be
\ known by an Nomination Of the jour-
mails what i was that has been greed
to by each house OF the general as
| sembly which frs acts thereon, . the
end that the Succeeding general Assem-
/ bly, II. ays certainly know What Its pre-
sdecesscr did
t seems TO us that simple enter
4 ing on aeljournal of tbs title or object
of a proposed amendment does not ac-
1 and the thought that this Is so is nue.
astrengthsnsfa When regard S had 10 al
the pre- Wis ions of the cons iir,ition. That
Ifsnsirlment pioNiele I ma upon the ina
pass age Of a bin the yeas and nays
Imust be taken and the same ellteree
upon the journal. This nesa essitastc ttis
enterins on the journal the title or sub
4 stance Of the bill TO be Voted upon. This
! being 50. II II o more than this was in
lsteEd@es IN relation 4, a constitutions
! ans ndment. he provision q $ 10 enter
4 ing IL on the journal is linne ees sary ans
4 snlsaningless. There is no provision re.
lalliilng q bill TO be entered on the jour:
igllal. but the constitution does require
4 thai, proposed amendment therefs
\ Email te entered on the journals witt
HE yeas and nays.
We DO not find space 10 quote fur
thsr but le:lve the PROFESSION 10 reas
for tbs alsssiyes. None the less so ar,
i The able aEi telling arguments pra
lducesi By hat eminent jurist Day. il
a opinion Writing, and authorities cited
on re rearing
" II tl.ss- be dicta, they are dict;
i sprpngpfsd BY able thought. clear rea
tssoning and conv iiiaiilg argument. an,
A rise % the height OF most sound AM
/ uhstan,ial law.
i $ We have as conci,is ION Of I.,w.
Il laN that When the cons Il ution uiovid
4 Ing for its own amendment said sticl
proposed amendment shall be enteret
on the Journals it meant What Il sal,
and shall be entered al length.
Il The trainers OF the constitution S
4 s;ntendAd il.
rhe text of the constitution provid
ing fs,r alris mi nerlis 50 expresses IL
Our oWn courts have 50 cons frlleI Ii
With these This court is content.
q Going without the pale of our os,s
& STATE for light on this subject We lin
81 the alltilpiity i attie,. states soineAxlls,
J: Diversified, no the greater concenst
Fl OF opinion appears 10 follow In tn
!: wake Of Iona LAW as hereinhefore Re
ferred 10 and sought to be herein an
: lpiied.
Among those who would appear t
hold otherwise Eiay be cited:
The case much reliedson by RESPOND
ent, reported in the 24th Kan. To1 an
known as the prohibitory CASE. va
determined February %. 1851. and til
: case of Roeiller VS. Hill was determine
s April p, 1883, being over Two years al
ter the Kansas case. AS SHOWN in tt
! opinion. our. court had this case befo,
= them at the determination of the cas-
: Of Koehler vs.. Hill, but refused
8 adopt or approve the same on the poll
Y herein decided.
y '.I3ut if Kansas courts are conte,
: with that construction of the law, the
! we viii be content but 50 emphatic
: the law otherwise in Iowa that it cal
not be disregarded z
. . Judge Dewey then cites various d
" cisions and authorities. among the
!. = Oakland Paving Company VS.. Iailts
:, 1Califorlia). llth Pacific Reporter, pa:
Z IL. NORMAN VS.. Hogan, NIarylar
= supreme court Atlantic Reporte
i, Nesbit rs. People, So Pacific Reporte
:. 81.
!, !, authorities, both Of elemental
: writers and decisions from states a
y numerous and not wanting in numb
or extent of comment 10 sustain u
Iowa law. Among those this cour; hi
examined are:
; 'Jamison on Constitutional conve
!. ltions.
= Cooley on Constitutional Limit
a tons
sunderland on Statutory constru
u ton.
= Other states that have held the san
u as Iowa may be cited:
,e. Oakland VS.. Hilton, II Pacific Re-
/ 9 Cal.
Il Thompson vs.. Ashworth, 1lth Paci
Reporter. 6l5.
al These cases, or most Of them, a
ne directly in point and the langua
e,.rx,., q,