Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-12-09
suPREME COURT WILL DECIDE
IMPORTANT CASE Wirh,N
NEXT DAY OR rWo.
FORECAST 10 THAT STATE
WILL Be SUSTAINED
Dozen Cases on Docket Fsr; Oral Arsu.
mont - Two Interesting Criminal
casas On Fer Rshsarins Glenn Gull
liver Presents Strong Argument For
'Rsvsrsal Of Conviction.
Special to Times Republican.

0eS MONIES, Dec. S.-~Whether or not
the state Of Iowa SHALL for the next
century at least. have its seat Of gov
eminent in pinched and crowded quar-
ters In mean surroundings or shall
proceed now to take over the ground
needed for q proper and decent setting
of the same will be decided by the
Iowa supreme court at the sitting
which opened today.
The decision will be Of considerable
length and will deal exclusively with
the various questions presented. Ar
guments in the case covered many
pages
state house employee good at guess
Ing on what Is likely to happen. makes
the following forecast:
1. The court will hold that the bill
attacked is one which contemplates Q
public Improvement for and on behalf
Of the state and q simple method Of
guarding against imposition on the
state and for providing funds for pay
ment by exercise Of the right of taxa
ton.
2. The bill Is not scheme for bor-
rowing money in any amount to be
used for the benefit Of few indivi-
dual. and insofar as it contemplates
deferred payments it is merely in order
that the officials In charge should have
leeway for transacting the business in
the way least likely to put the state to
disadvantage.
3. The taxing power Of the state Is
/ vsA0 @~t~ ~s,H, A,.A ~
people exercised II proper way and
is not to be regulated by the courts.
4. The state can anticipate taxes
actually levied perhaps also for the
biennial period. thou that question is
not involved. and therefore the state
can incur obligations without having
the money on hand to pay and does not
have to go to strictly cash basis.
5. That the word debt as used in the
constitution and elsewhere is not to be
given q broad Interpretation so as to
cover every form Of obligation or pos
sible expense.
s. That law is not always to be
held entirely invalid because some one
or more clauses appear to be bad, nor
is 1T to be presumed that state officials
intend to violate the law or the con-
stitution because they might do so un-
der any certain statute.
Dozen TO Be Argued.
About q dozen cases are on the docket
for oral argument to the supreme court
today and tomorrow. which will COM
plete the submissions for the year.
Aside from one case they are all those
that have been passed over from pre-
vious periods.
The one case coming up In regular
order because Of its involving consti-
tutional question is that Of the state
against Mrs. Maurice Lynch, involving
the fate of the law under which bawdy
houses are placed under injunction.
The, defense claims not that the law 10
unconstitutional but that the manner
of its passage was not legal in every
detail, in that one Of the three sigma
lures required for certification to the
governor was omitted. hence that such
omission operates as a veto Of the bill.
Two interesting criminal cases are
on for rehearing, and especially m
:eresting when they are placed along
side Of each other Both are to be sub
mitted tomorrow. They are the cases
of Glenn CULVER, Mitchell county.
convicted and affirmed, and of Hugh
Teale, Decatur county, convicted and
reversed.
The state complains, in the latter
case, because the appellate court
passed on the evidence and took from
the jury it's prerogatives; and the de-
tense complains in the former. that the
court refused to do that very thing.
tho admitted that, If 1t should do so,
the result would be different.
The 0ullivsr Case.
In the CULVER case the Justice writ
ing the opinion expressed the opinion
for himself, as tc the alibi relied on,
that a reading Of the testimony "leaves
him in much grave doubt" that "if this
court was authorized to retry fact
questions in criminal cases he would be
in conscience bound to vote for an
acquittal." Yet the conviction of Gull
liver for having made an assault upon
a banker at Orchard was affirmed. The
attorney for CULVER calls attention, II
his argument for rehearing, that the
holding of the court seems to be that
when there is conflict of the evidence
the question is for the jury no matter
whether the conflict Is such that 1t
would be unreasonable to believe the
evidence OF the state as against the
evidence OF the defense. IF that Is
true" says the attorney, then there
-