The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1905-03-02

If the proposition for legislative session in 1905 had
been submitted separately the electors could have
voted for the biennial election amendment and yet
voted against the extra session in 1906 And this is
offered test of its independence from the main
amendment. This reasoning is not quite sound. 1t
overlooks the requirements that the results above
supposed shall leave the constitution accordant in its
parts. If both propositions be related that the
maintenance of the consistency of the constitution
requires that both be adopted both be rejected,
then they may be joined parts of one amendment.
III the adoption OF the biennial election plan affects
section article g. render it dscordant with
itself or other parts OF the constitution, then such
section itself may he amended to conform to the pro-
posed plan 1t seems to me that the biennial elec
ton plan does aect section g. article 8, is affected
by it, and that such plan could be put into OPP
GRAFTON without an amendment of such section or
temporary violation of it.
Obeying the two mandates of this section, the leg
islature has heretofore met bienhally in num-
bered years. and must continue to meet in all time
to come The members of the legislature have been
elected In odd numbered years, and must continue to
be so elected in all time to come.
The two mandates of this section are On that the
sessions of the general assembly shall be biennial,
and ~ shall commence the second Monday in
January next following the election of its members
These two requirements have heretofore been conss-
tent with each other Obedience could be rendered
to both OF them at the same time. But in putting
the biennial election plan into operation
point where we can comply with only OF Them;
and in complying with one we must necessarily vo-
loate the other. In our assumption already made
that the first regular session of the general assembly
| under the new plan would in pursuance of such
tion 2, meet in January, 1907 offering obey
the second mandate thereof but in doing
temporarily violate the first mandate which requires
the sessions to be biennal-biennial always, and
triennal nor annual, at any time. If the first
sion after the adoption of this amendment should be
posponedto January, 1907, in order to comply with
the first mandate of biennial sessions, then violate
| the second mandate, which requires the commence
ment of the session in January next following the
election of the members.
Such election must take place In 1905 under the
amendment When the transition from the old plan
to the new shall have been accomplished the section
in question will then become harmonious and consis
tent with ITSELF and with all parts OF the constiu-
ton But in order to accomplish such transition in
| constitutional way its amendment is an absolute
necessity. The necessity is temporary, it is true;
| but the amendment proposed is temporary also.
| Abandoning the assumption on which the foregoing
reasoning is based the question may well be raised
whether the provision for session of the general
semby in 1906 be itself surplusage, if the amend
ment had been adopted without such provision would
not the existing legislative members be required to
meet in January 1906 in obedience to the first man
date of section Q, article 81 Such session would
be violation of the second mandate, because tina t
| mandate has been obeyed by the sitting of 1904.
True, the legislative members were not elected for
the purpose OF such second session, but their terms
have been extended for year, and to what purpose
if not to obey the requirements of the constitution?
If this reasoning be sound then the problem is simply
transferred to the question, wen after 1906 shall
| the succeeding general assembly meet? Its members
| will be elected under the plan in 1908. BY the
second mandate of section Q, article g. the general
assembly must meet in January next following the
election of the members, viz: January, 1907 by the
| first mandate thereof the assembly must not meet
until January 1903 An amendment, therefore, from
this point of view is necessity The provision for
legislative session in January, 1907, is such amend
ment Its effect is temporary. 1t provides for re-
duced period between the sessions of the Thirty first
and Thirty second general assemblies only. Ths.is
the switching point from the old plan the and
this part in the amendment furnishes the switching
facilities 1t is true provision for triennal
period between the Thirteth and Thirty first genera
assemblies, thus emitting the session in 1906, would
have accomplished the same end But it rested with
| the legislature to formulate plan, and it had as
much right to propose one method as the other.
PART oF MAIN AMENDMENT.
The change from plan to the other being once
accomplished, section of article g. becomes hence
forth consistent with itself and with all the constitu
tion and is permitted to resume its authority in it,
original form. To say, therefore, that the had
right to for the biennial election amendment
and yet vote against the extra session provision is
say that they might consistently vote for the biennia
plan and a the time vote that it should neve
go into operation My conclusion therefore is tina
the amendment OF section OF article 3, by the pro
vision complained of, is an independent amendment
hut is identical to- and important part Of the mail
amendment and is properly included therein
The length OF this opinion forbids further discus
, Sion have not overlooked the fact that both tn
and the house of the Thirtieh general assem-
bly, in their resolution of submission used the wor
| amendments" This circumstance is not who'll
without significance but do not deem it of control
, ling Importance. In the Herriod case, supra,
stronger circumstance of the nature was pre-
scented, but the supreme court of South Dakot
, deemed it of little weight
In conclusion, may properly say that have ame
to keep before the doctrine of stric constructio
OF the constitution as enunciated by suprem
court. have done this only in obedience to tn
higher authority but in obedience also to my ow
convictions that strict construction of the constitu
tion is the only safe rule In first deducing rule
be applied to this case think have adopted on
somewhat more stringent than appears in any of tn
five cases cited from other states In my opinion
is not more rigid than ought to obtain Nor do Sc
how more rigid rule could be adopted without rem
dering quite impracticable this method of amend
ment
complex that has ever been subject in Iowa
1t has the appearance its face of great multiplicity
confess to unfavorable first impressions to it
validity. There is much pausbility in the argumsn
against it. But unless have lost way in tn
maze of argument and have failed to reason correct
it stands the most rigid test that has been ap
piled in any state to like question.
BY careful analysis it becomes evident that it re
ceived watchful thought from its sponsors an
the legislative committees in its, framing; an
the most that can be said against 1t is that it ha
approached close to the dead line.
Injunction will be ordered prayed. with cost
against the defendants and formal decree will be file
herewith
(Signed) ". d. EVANS, Judge