Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-01-10
CASE WILL co TO THE SUPREME COURT
Court Finds That Titus Amendment Was Not Legally
Submitted by the Legislature Legally Adopted
By the People = Opinion Delivered
Tuesday Afternoon.

| amendment SHALL BE ENTERED
IN THEIR JOURNALS, with the
yeas and nays taken thereon etc. To
properly understand the meaning of
those terms it becomes necessary to
return to some thoughts suggested In
the pore part of the opinion.
The record of the house fails in any
particular to set out in the records
of it's proceeds any Entry on it's
journal" of such offered amendment
| as proposed by the senate So much
of the argument on this branch of the
case is directed by the necessity OF
this entry in full of such proposed
amendment on their journals that we
pause for its consideration.
In considering this question it is
we'll for us to bear in mind at all
times that we are not constituting a
statute. or a constitutional provision
as applicable to a statute, but the
construction of a constitutional provit
sion as applying to itself, and seeking
to amend itself; one of the most vital
provisions of that important and,
| to the people, almost sacred instru-
ment.
If courts should 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 the
great charter by which the sovereign
people establish and maintain govern
ment," then, indeed, are we drifting
on the shoals of danger and destruc-
ton
We are mindful of the fact that the
authorities teach us that in constru-
statutes, including their for moi intro
duction, their title and their ultimate
passage, courts are taught not to be
SO technical or critical as to embarass
| legislation or to unnecessarily pre-
vent the accomplishment of an hon
est purpose. But the same authori-
ties teach us that in constituting con-
4 stitutional provisions, courts are
1 bound to sonstrue them, nor technical
4 ly or hypercritically, but with the
keen purpose of preserving the con-
| stitution in it's purity and integrity
i and to permit no construction that
| will tend to an innovation, either add
| ing to or subtracting from it's terms,
meaning or intent, and thereby take
1 it out of the pale of questionability
In attempting to analyze the term
Hsed we learn from Webster's Die
4 tioaary, defining the word "enter"
/ go to inscribe; to enroll; to record;
/ as to enter name; a date or a state
ment of fact; to enter debt in a
! ledger. a manifest of a ship or OF
merchandise in custom house or the
| like CO. Law. To go into or upon
lands and take actual possession of
them. OBJ To place in regular form
before the court, usually in writing;
/ to put upon it's records; as to enter
1 a writ, appearance, rule or judgment
Hence we find the correct meaning
of the term .'entered upon their jour-
nails '(mark the plural) could form the
text itself be construed in no other
sense than in the language of the die
tionary 'fe inscribed: enrolled re-
corded as you would enter a name;
a date; or statement" Or, in le-
gal sense, to place before the court
(the people, usually in writing; to
put upon it's records as to enter a writ,
etc. So we find from an analysis of
the term, taught us by the books, that
when the trainers of the constitution
used the term entered upon their
| journals" it meant what it said and
should be fully inscribed thereon
| This is manifest by the plural used in
the termed Journals" for we find in
the first expression used in Section I
amy amendment or amendments to
this constitution may be proposed in
| either house of the general assembly,
evidently intending that the proposed
amendment should be entered on
| the journals" both in the branch of
the general assembly where it origin
ated, as well as the body to whom fur
ther endorsement is required
4 We have been rather prompt in as
sorting this conclusion, not alone for
the reason that .'in terms the law ex-
presses it, but for other reasons and
considerations. We have said much
| in this opinion tending to show the
high right of the people to adopt alter
or amend the fundamental law and
that under no circumstances was it
ever intended to wrest the privilege
from them. So it was that when the
people caused to be created and after
wards by their votes adopted the pres
ent constitution, they conferred on the
Legislation the right to propose amend
ments, a right never before extended
to or entrusted with that body, or in
deed any other authority than them
selves.
When they did, however, they threw
around such right closely framed
network of procedure that would alb
solutely prevent the legislature from
|trespassing upon such inalienable
fright, but in the section under consid-
eration, providing for amendments
1 they say substantially: "You (the leg
lislature) may propose amendments;
such proposed amendments shall be
agreed to by majority of both
houses" Now, that the people may
know just what you propose such
proposed amendments shall be ENTER
led on their journals" evidently for
1.-The express purpose of informing the
fpeople just what the legislature in
tended to do or what amendments
they should offer for the peoples ap.
Iproyal.
The thought that it was not only the
express wording Of the law, but the