TABLE OF CASES 256 Hatch, People ex rel., v. Reardon 310 Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. 162Hans v. State of Louisiana Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana.... 361 Ayers, In re Hawker v. People of New York.. 442 204 Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co....... 263 364 201 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis.. 383 | Mugler v. State of Kansas HORNBOOK CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS 1 KOEHLER v. HILL. (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883. 60 Iowa, 543, 14 N. W. 738, 15 N. W. 609.) [Appeal from Scott County District Court. The Constitution of Iowa provided that proposed amendments thereto should be agreed to by two successive sessions of the General Assembly and then submitted to the people for ratification, and should become a part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon. A proposed amendment, which purported to have been agreed to by the Eighteenth General Assembly, appeared enrolled and signed as follows: "No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or keep for sale, as a beverage, any intoxicating liquor whatever, including ale, wine, and beer." This proposed amendment was also agreed to by the Nineteenth General Assembly and was ratified by a majority of 30,000 of the electors. It appeared from the journals of the senate of the Eighteenth General Assembly that the resolution actually agreed to by that body contained the words "or to be used" after the word "beverage," though the enrolled resolution signed by the president of the senate omitted these words. In an action by plaintiffs to recover for beer sold and delivered to defendant, it was held that the senate journals might be examined to contradict the enrolled resolution, and that the proposed amendment never legally became a part of the Constitution. The defendant appealed, and the state Supreme Court affirmed the decision (Beck, J., dissenting). On a petition for rehearing the following opinion was given:] DAY, C. J. *** It is asserted in the petition for rehearing 1 For discussion of principles, see Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) §§ 28, 29. HALL CASES CONST.L.-1 that "the judicial department of the state has no jurisdiction over political questions, and cannot review the action of the Nineteenth General Assembly, and of the people, in the matter of the adoption or amendment of the Constitution of the state." This position. practically amounts to this: that the provisions of the Constitution. for its own amendment are simply directory, and may be disregarded with impunity; for it is idle to say that these requirements of the Constitution must be observed, if the departments charged with their observance are the sole judges as to whether or not they have been complied with. This proposition was advanced for the first time upon the petition for rehearing, and, if correct, it is of course an end of the controversy. Upon this branch of the case counsel cite Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 12 L. Ed. 581. As this case has principally been relied upon by the advocates of the theory now under consideration, and has been given great prominence in the discussions which have taken place, we desire to present its facts with a degree of fullness which, under ordinary circumstances, would perhaps be considered unnecessary, to the end that the degree of its applicability to the present case may be fully understood. In 1841, the state of Rhode Island was acting under the form of government established by the charter of Charles II in 1663. In this form of government no mode of proceeding was pointed out by which amendments could be made. It authorized the legislature to prescribe the qualification of voters, and in the exercise of this power the right of suffrage was confined to freeholders. In 1841, meetings were held and associations were formed by those who were in favor of a more extended right of suffrage, which finally resulted in the election of a convention to form a new Constitution, to be submitted to the people for their adoption or rejection. The persons chosen came together and framed a Constitution by which. the right of suffrage was extended to every male citizen of twentyone years of age who had resided in the state for one year. Upon a return of the votes, the convention declared that the Constitution was adopted and ratified by a majority of the people of the state, and was the paramount law and Constitution of Rhode Island. The charter government did not admit the validity of the proceedings nor acquiesce in them. On the contrary, in January, 1842, when this new Constitution was communicated to the governor and by him laid before the legislature, it passed resolutions declaring all acts done for the purpose of imposing that Constitution upon the state, to be an assumption of the powers of government, in violation of the rights of the existing government and of the people at large, and that it would maintain its authority and defend the legal and constitutional rights of the people. Thomas W. Dorr, who had been elected governor under the new Constitution, prepared to assert the authority of that government by force, and many citizens |