The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-02
LOOK HERE, SIR!
Mr.. Coleman, You May Have
Started Trouble.
Your Opinion Would Nullffy
PrOhibitOry Amendment.
NOT IN THE JOURNALS.
Resolution Wasn't Published as
You Say Law Requires.
Biennial Election Law In the
Same Situation.
NOT IN THE JOURNALS.

If the opinion which Attorney General
the legality of the propositions to amend
the constitution which were passed by
the last legislature, is correct, the pro-
hibitory amendment was never legally
submitted. 1t was never published in
any legislative journal in any form
Whatever and there is nothing in any
published records anywhere to show
the nature of the proposition.
Mr.. Coleman declares that to be legal
resolution to amend the constitution
must be printed in the legislative jour-
nails, together with the yeas and nays
by which it passed. This is apparent
ly the reading of the constitutional
provisions. Because two of the pro-
posed amendments were not published
in either house journal upon final pas
sage, Mr.. Coleman gives it as his for
NAL opinion that they cannot be sub
mitted to the people, although they
were published upon the first and sec
ond readings.
The pronfbitory amendment was not
only not published upon final passage.
but 1t was not published in either leg
1slative Journals at the time of its in
PRODUCTION even. The only thing to dis
close its nature is the title of the reso-
luton, and the title says nothing about
ator Hamlin in the legislature of 1879
as Senate Joint Resolution No. 8, and
its title was as follows:
Senate joint resolution No. 8, pro-
posing an amendment to article 1 5 of
the constitution of the state of Kan
sas, relating to the manufacture and
sale of Intoxicating liquors. by adding
section 10 to said article
That is the way it is referred to In
both journals of the legislature of
1879, and there is nothing else to dis
close its nature. 1t was not publish
ed in the statute book either. The
history of the resolution in both
houses was as follows:
Senate.
Page 312 OF senate journal, intro
duced by Senator Hamlin.
Page 357, recommendation of the
judiciary committee that it be refer
red to the committee of the whole and
be printed.
Page 432. motion carried to consider
it engrossed and to read it a third
time. Resolution passed by a vote of
y to o. The yeas and nays given.
Page $40, reported back from the
house as passed by that body.
Page 643. reported as enrolled,
signed by the officers of both houses,
and sent to the governor for his
signature.
Page ISL, messaged back by Gov
ernor St. John as approved.
House.
Page SIG of the house journal, mes
saged over from the senate.
Page 61S, read for the first time.
Page go, referred to the committee
on temperance.
Page 742, recommended for passage
by the committee on temperance.
Page 949, ordered read for the third
time.
Page s9S-s. passed the house by a vote
of IS to 81.
The original resolution is. of course,
on file in the office of the secretary of
state, but so far has been discover
ed there is no printed copy of it in the
records. If it was legally adopted
Francis proposition to amend the con-
stitution and the Smith amendment to
the bill of rights cannot also be sub
mitted at the coming election
The history of the prohibitory amend
ment was brought out by some of the
out if other constitutional amendments
had been adopted in accordance with
Mr.. Coleman's opinion.
An investigation shows that the biennial
election amendment OF two years ago
nails in accordance with Mr.. Cole1nan's
opinion. 1t was introduced as senate
concurrent resolution No 5, and is not
published on first reading, but appears in
the senate journal on second reading. 1t
was also published on final passage, to-
gether with the yeas and nays. Then it
went to the house and was published,
when it was sent to the judiciary COM
mittee, but the committee reported it
amendments are not shown, nor was the
resolution published as finally passed by
the house. It went back to the senate
cords that Senator White moved to con-
cur in the house amendments, but it does
not show that the motion was ever pass,
ed. and there is no record of the amended
resolution in either journal.