The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1905-02-16
DEFECT IN AMENDMENT !
Opposition to Bi-EnniaI Election
Law Have Discovered Additional
Defect in Measure.

| lOPPosV" w Ds-AuHl0l lICCltUN
Law Have Discovered Additional
Defect in Measure.
1t has been disclosed that an addi-
tional defect in the biennial election
amendment was developed during the
progress Of the hearing as to its valid
ity before Judge Evans at Nevada re-
Gently.
The Twenty-ninth general assembly
in >proposing the amendment to the
electors referred to it as "amendment."
The Thirtieth general assembly. in
proposing it used the term ''amend-
ments."
The fact that in this particular the
two legislatures did not propose the
same amendment to the voters was not
enlarged upon in the hearing. before
Judge Evans, particularly, but it was
developed by the opponent of the meas
ure to show that the legislature itself
was at no stage attentive to the consti-
tutional inhibition against the subnis-
sion ofmore than one amendment upon
single vote, and that any, singleness
that may be claimed for the amendment
In controversy is purely accidental and
not deliberate.
The contention of the opponents of
the amendment is that it embodies more
than one amendment to the constitu-
tion, thing prohibited by the constitu-
tion. The use of the plural term
amendments" in referring to it might
have been pressed as conclusive that
the legislature itself had construed the
amendment as embodying several differ
ent amendments; but the opponents of
the measure did not urge this view on
the court.
When the fact was discovered in the
session laws the attorneys for the
amendment were disposed to regard it
as misprint; but reference to the
senate and house journals Of the
Thirtieth general assembly showed that
the resolution appeared there in the
same form. Still later it has appeared.
although this fact did not get into the
arguments in the case, that the resolu-
tions Of the Twenty-seventh and
Twenty-eighth general assemblies, in
which Senator Titus had personal
charge of the proceedings preliminary
to the submission of the amendment in
the year 1900, disclosed the same dis
crepancy, the Twenty seventh general
assembly proposing the amendment in
the singular number, and the Twenty
eighth general. assembly submitting it
to the electors in the plural number.
EVE DIFFsRENT PROPOSITIONS. =.
1t was the contention of the oppo-
nents of the measure that at least five
different propositions or amendments
were embodied in the proposition sub
mitted as a single amendment to the
ron ct tutinn fo11oxx,,.
First, the adoption of biennial cleo
tions; second, the elimination Of the
county attorney as constitutional
officer; third the extension of the terms
of certain officers, whose successors
would be elected at the time for which
the election is abolished fourth, chang
the supreme court, by which he is now
to be designated by the general assem-
bly,; fifth, the provision for another reg
ular session of the present general as
sembly in the year 1906.
OF these five propositions, the first,
hearing in his Nevada Representative, is
of course, the main one. The third was
conceded to be incidental to the first
and was not made the basis of objection
to the validity of the amendment. The
fourth and fifth were made the basis OF
the real challenge and were urged with
all possible earnestness as being in fact
separable propositions, the inclusion OF
either of which in the same submission
with the main question was sufficient to
invalidate the whole for duplicity. AS
to the second there was a peculiar sitn-
no ~e
not really claiming that the county at
torney had been taken out of the con-
stitution, but insisting if he had been
that here was another instance of null
tiplicity in the amendment; while Sena-
tor Titus on the other side seemed to be
of the opinion that the county attorney
had been taken out of the constitution
and that taking him out was proper.
CONTENTION OF OPPOSITION.
The opponents of the amendment have
placed emphasis on the change in the
rule respecting the selection of the
chief justice of the supreme court, be-
cause of the fact that provision on
this subject was needlessly injected in
to the amendment, in the first place, and
| is non-effective in the second. The
present constitution makes the Justice
WIN 10 ufSU W FSUlrc Ullc Clllcl Justice.
The new provision provides that the
assembly shall determine which of the
two who will first and simultaneously
go out of Office shall be chief Justice.
But the court already is in session
under the amendment, if valid, and the
Legislature cannot determine about the
chief justiceship until next winter. 1t
was argued that this made the inclusion
of the provision utterly irrelevant.
| AS to the extra session, it was agreed
fthat the time provided for the general
assembly to meet is in January follow
ling the election of it's members, and
that if the amendment had been adopted
with the provision for the extra session
left out there would be no session
in 1906, unless the governor should con-
yene the general assembly by proclama-
ton, as he would have the right to do.
1t was insisted by the supporters of the
amendment that the holding. of the ses-
sion would be imperatively necessary
for many reasons, and it was admitted
/ by the opposition that these reasons
were for the most part good; but it was