Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-03-22
CITY FLIES ANSWER
N THE SHAW CASE
City Solicitor Van Law Pre-
serts Argument Against Sol
diers' Preference Law
AGAINST THE PUBLIC LIBERTY
Special Privileges to Any One Glass of
Men Declared to Be Against Public
Policy = Surprise That Soldiers
Should Uphold 1t Manifested-Brief
History of the Case.
History of the Case.

City Solicitor c. II. Van Law, on be-
half of the city, filed before the su-
preme court Tuesday his argument in
answer to the attorneys for the Iowa
department, G.. A. r., which organi-
zation is appealing from Judge cas-
wells decision in the case OF Z. IL.
Shaw VS.. the City of Marshalltown, IN
an attempt to test the validity OF the
soldiers preference law, which was
passed by the thirtieth general assem-
bly,. The city solicitor maintains that
the law is inimical to the principles Oh
public liberty and freedom, and eN-
pressed the surprise that the soldiers,
above all Others, should support such
an enactment. Mr.. Van Law takes the
same view of the lower court, that the
law is unconstitutional because Oh us
class legislation features.
The case that is now before the
supreme court is one III which Capt.
C. II. Shaw, of this city, TOOK advan-
tage of the soldiers preference enact
ment, and demanded that council ap-
point him city clerk, by virtue OF ms
service in the cival war; The council
saw fit to ignore the demand, and APP
pointed L. Derby, who is not vet
eran of the civil war. Capt. Shaw
began suit and the case was tried IN
the district court before Judge Cas-
we'll. who decided that the law was UNI
constitutional.
In his answer City Solicitor Van
Law says in part:
ANY legislation which selects a
class of men from out the body OF So
ciety and bases such classification
solely on a passed and completed
transaction, having no relation TO the
particular legislation enacted and &C
cords to the selected class prefermenv
in position, employment or privilege to
the excluded class, all things else be-
ing equal, is unquestionably granting
special privileges to the selected class.
without ingratitude to the veteran
soldiers and sailors of the civil war
we undertake to urge upon the con-
sideration of this court the proposition
that the act of the Thirtieth general
assembly under consideration, violates
the organic law of this state, and
hence is wholly null and vcid.
I'm the language of the supreme
court Of Wisconsin in deciding state VS..
Whitcomb, 30 n. W., 472: mo one de-
MES that to those who have thus sac
rificed their comfort and often their
health and vigor to the public there is
legitimate and proper feeling of graf
itude from the entire community, each
member thereof should appreciate: but
this does not answer the question
whether by constitutions enacted half
a century or more ago there was con-
ferred upon agents of the public -
the enthusiastically to coin this
gratitude into ali forms of favor.
whether by direct donation or exemp-
ton from the duties and burdens rest
ing upon other citizens, after these
men had returned from their military
service and again become as they were
before, part Of the mass Of citizen
ship
Is II Public Policy?
IF it be urged, as it has been, that
the preferment provided for in the act
under consideration is justified on the
grounds of public policy-that is, If it
be urged that Tt is distinctly public
purpose to promote patriotism and to
make conspicuous and honorable any
exhibition of courage, consistency and
devotion to the welfare of the state =
it is still evident that the act under
is class legislation. 1t,
we submit then confronts the unan-
Swerable criticism on this basis that
was ubvTitted to similal~act in the
opinion of the Wisconsin court in
State VS.. Whitcomb, 80 N. w., 472, to-
wit: In considering the exemption of
partially disabled veterans of the civil
war, quite unanswerable query aris-
es why, whether for purposes of taxa
ton or policy, they should be exempt
any more than equally disabled veter-
ans of other wars; why a victim of the
Spanish bullets in 1898, or of Phil
ippine wound in 1900 is any more dam
gerous as a peddler or less liable TO be-
come a public charge, taan a similar
victim of confederate asSanlt in 1864;
or why the former is any less entitled
to the gratitude and favoc of the public
name to either purpose OF this law.
Lie CIlllSlSlll dppliSA IVY lHC N1S-
consin court in the case then before it
is certainly applicable to the lesisla-
ton now before this court for it's con-
sideration. Without urging at greater
length upon the consideration Of the
court, the reasoning of the authorities
cited in the preceding brief, we submit
that this court. in disposns; of the
case of State VS.. Garbossi, Ill Iowa,
1876, has fully disposed OF the question
involved in this case.
'.The appellant has called the atten-
ton of the court to the very recent
case of Goodrich VS., Mitchell, Ga L. r.
A., 945 An examination of that case,
however, readily disclostes the reason
ing of the court there employed, and
the conclusion there reached can not
be applicable in this case, the court
there saying, in column 2, page GAG:
Tt is not contended that the act con-
aicts with any express provision of
either the state or federal constitution,
but. rather, that it is contrary to the
and spirit of our consti-
tuition and again in the succeeding
column of the report, note the lam
guage: Our constitution differs ma
terially from those of many of the
states with respect to the granting of
The only provision we
have touching the subject is found in
section 2 of the Bill of Rights, which
is: All political power is inherent in
-, ~ ,,a1r1a oil f,.aa