Las Vegas age. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1947, 1927-07-23
NEWIDVORCE LAW
BEFORE THE COURT
Matter of ConstitutionaIity
of Three Months Resi-
dence Argued and Submit
ted to Supreme Court.

ulNOTCo law anu 0umDeT OF ue-
crees granted, the supreme court
of the state of Nevada is ex-
pected to lender an early decision
in the matter of the laws con-
stitutionality, which was argued
and submitted Wednesday. It is
the general belief that the law
will be upheld.
The action before the supreme
court is an appeal for a writ OF
prohibition to prevent Judge
George A. Bartlett of the Washoe
county district court from pro-
ceeding with the case in which he
declared the law constitutional,
says the Nevada State Journal.
Among the attorneys who pre-
scented the arguments were those
representing the plaintiff and the
defendant in the test case. two ap-
pointed by Judge Bartlett to pre-
sent the views of his court, one to
present the views of Judge G. A.
Ballard, who first questioned the
validity of the law, and two app
pointed amicus curiae by the Su
preme court One of the latter
was Atty, Gen, M. A Diskin.
Though two of the attorneys
presented the negative side of
argument for the purpose of the
test, it was remarked that the en-
tire seven expressed the belief
personally that the measure was
valid
Harlan Howard, counsel for the
defense in the case, who elected
to raise the question of the con-
stitutionality of the three-months
law in Judge Bartlett's court,
opened the arguments. He con-
tended that the legislature had
no authority to amend or repeal
the initiative measure adopted by
the people in 1922, which pro-
because, under the provisions of
vided for a six months residence,
section 2, article 10, of the Con
stitution of the State of Nevada,
the people have reserved to them
selves the power to amend or
repeal laws adopted. by them.
He further contended that the
title of the 1927 act was defec-
tive, as it attempts to amend
what the act itself designates as
a proposal, and not an existing
law.
George B. Thatcher, amicus Gu
riae of the Washoe county court,
answered the arguments of He
ward and insisted that under sec
ton 3 of the constitution a mea-
sure initiated by the people and
and for which a substitute was
proposed by the Legislature.
could be repealed or amended by
the legislature. Mr.. Thatcher al
so asserted that the title of the
act was sufficient, under deci-
sions heretofore rendered by the
supreme court.
Gray Mashburn, attorney oppos
ing the petitioner in the district
court was the first speaker at the
afternoon session. His observa-
tions were along the lines indi-
Gated by Thatcher.
Lester d. Summerfield, district
attorney Of Washoe county, took
the position that section 3 of ar
ticle 10 of the constitution had
reference only to such measures
as were adopted by majority
vote cast at the election, and it
was admitted by opposing coun-
sci for petitioner that the initia-
tive measure provided for six
months residence in divorce cases
did not receive a majority of the
votes cast at the election.
George S. Brown presented in
full and filled with the clerk of the
court a statemet containing the
opinion Of Judge Ballard and set
ting forth his views as to the
nnconstitutionality of the law.
Brown stated that these were not
his own views and he expressed
himself as being satisfied that
the law was constitutional
NJ. A. Diskin, attorney general.
appointed by the supreme court
as amicus curiae, stated to the
court that after a careful nVesti-
cation of the law and the conten-
tions raised by the petitioner ne
was of the opinion that the objec-
tions as to the invalidity of the
1927 act were without merit for
the reason that the measure
by the people in 1922 was
initiated by petition and that the
proposed by the legis-
lature was not a law and did not
become a law until adopted by
the people The attorney general
stated that the constitution OF
Nevada gave to the legislature
the right to amend or repeal such
a measure after the expiration of
three years from adoption.
George Sanford, also amicus
curiae iUr the supreme court,
claimed inasmuch as the law
adopted by the people had been
proposed by the legislature, the
had the power to
or repeal the law at any
time after its adoption. He con-
CURED in the conclusions reached
by other counsel who held the
statute to be entirey constitutional
in every respect.