Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1901-02-07
KILLS TITUS
AMENDMENT
Iowa Supreme Court UrrhoIds the
Adverse Decision Of Judge
Dewey
SUSTAINED BY THE FULL BENCH
Reasoning Followed in the Pro-
hibitory Amendment Case
Adopted by the Court.
-. 40. a.. -..-
FLAW IN THE RECORDS FATAL
Court Holds the Opinion on That Phase of
the Question In Prohibition Case Was
Not n Nctum. But n Decision, and
Is Followed In Titus Case.

Des Moines, Ia, Feb. a.-The supreme
court put a final quietus on the Titus
amendment today. fully sustaining tho
decision of Judge Dewey in the test
case. The decision was by the full
reasoning followed In the prohibitory
amendment case WAS adopted in full.
The court holds that In that case the
decision was not Il dictum but II mat
ter of actual decision by the court The
prohibitory case was knocked out by
reason of the fact that certain words
We're found in one of the resolutions
passed which We're not found in the
other. 1t Was contended by the Cup
pc rters of the Titus amendment that
v hat the court said In that case re-
garding spreading I'm full upon the
records was a mere dictun because
that question was not before the court.
The objection to giving great weight
to a dictum is that what is thus stated
is beyond the power of the court to de-
eide because the court can only adj
Judicate questions which are before il
and that as the question was not be-
fore the court what is said must be UNI
derstood as having been said without
The advantage of argument.
The Courts opinion.
An examination of the record" says
the court, ION which the Noehler case
was submitted, shows that by the
pleading an issue was plainly raised as
to whether 1T was necessary that the
proposed amendment be entered in
tull on the journals of both houses of
the general assembly in which it is
first proposed: that under the evidence
the amendment which was agreed to
by the senate of the Eighteenth gem
eral assembly was not entered in full
on the journal of the house of that as
sembly; that this WAS one of the
grounds on which the trial court held
the amendment not a part of the con-
stltution, that the ruling of the court
Oh this point was assigned as error,
and that this assignment was fully ar
gued by counsel on both sides
In the first opinion of the court in
that case, and again i'm the opinion on
reheaiing, the conclusion of the court
is definitely expressed that lhe entry
on the journals required by the consti-
tuition is an entry in full on the Jour
Eal of each house and that Il refer
ence by title To The resolution propos-
lhs the amendment is not sufficient as
10 either journal. The judge who dis
scented on the original hearing and
again on the rehearing treated this
question as involved and decided on
The najority's opinion. lit is therefore
decided to be conclusive that in the
pfohlbllory amendment case the court
dellhlte!y decided that an cntry in fun
Is required on both the journals. For
this reason the Titus amendment is
declared To be defective ana not a
part OF the constitution.
Conclusion of the Court.
Inc conclusion of the court follows.
ne conclusion therefore expire sse,l
hs thls court In the koehler case is nuu
a ulctum. but a decision, ana VIZ. must
either follow 1T or overdue ii. We
consider that inasmuch as it Involves
the construction of our own eonstit,l-
uon and has been recognized for many
years as making definite and certain
the method to be pursued in amends
lhs the constitution. 1T should be fol-
loved. And in conclusion, with refer
ence to that case. We consider ;h.t i,
Two questions involved, relating 10 The
method OF amending the constitution
one only was regarded as decided
While the other Was simply discussed
The conclusion of the court as ia
either one of these two Questions
would have determined the case ana
one conclusion is as pindlng upon u,
as the other.
Therefore following the decision o;
liie court IN the hoehler case, we hold
that the proposed amendment not hay
ing been entered upon the Journal of
the house OF the Twenty seventh gen
eral assembly was not proposed and
adopted as Required by our constitu-
of
This conclusion makes it unneces
sary TO discuss the Interpretation OF
the language of the amendment. and
ieaas TO the result that the relator is
entitled to the office which he claims. ;,