IOWA. 



445 



There were filed in the office of the Secre- 

 tary of State during the fiscal year ended Oct. 

 81, 1883, 30 articles of incorporation and con- 

 solidation of railroads, and 264 of manufactur- 

 ing, mining, banking, insurance, and building 

 and loan companies. 



New insane hospitals are to be erected at 

 Evansville and Logansport. 



At the southern prison a new cell-house, with 

 all modern conveniences and improvements, 

 has been completed and furnished, containing 

 cells for 400 convicts. 



The total number of convicts in prison at 

 the beginning of the fiscal year was 590, at the 

 close of the year 548, the daily average 578. 

 The daily average in 1879 was 624; showing a 

 decrease in five years of 46. 



Temperance. A session of the Grand Temper- 

 ance Council of Indiana was held in Indianap- 

 olis in September, with an attendance of about 

 200 delegates, representing 42 counties. The 

 executive committee of the council submitted a 

 report, reviewing the temperance work in the 

 State, as follows : 



For the past two years and more almost the entire 

 effort of the council has been directed toward secur- 

 ing prohibition through the means of an amendment 

 to our State Constitution. When the election for the 

 Legislature was approaching, the propriety of submit- 

 ting the amendment to a popular vote became a polit- 

 ical question, and the temperance sentiment among 

 the masses of the people was strong enough to com- 

 pel the two dominant parties to commit themselves 

 upon the issue. They were not asked to pronounce 

 in favor of prohibition, but simply of submission of 

 the amendment. The Democratic party pronounced 

 against prohibition, and promised submission only as 

 a last resort, and provided they could not defeat it 

 beforehand. The Republican party committed itself 

 to submission, and, although the result was the defeat 

 of that party, the newly elected members of the Leg- 

 islature were, a majority of them, favorable to our 

 cause, and the defeat of" the party can be accounted 

 for on other grounds than that the 'prohibition amend- 

 ment was unpopular. 



The following resolution was adopted : 



Resolved, That we amend pur former resolution, 

 passed in April, 1883, so as to read " that we will vote 

 for no man for any office who is not known to be in 

 favor of prohibition." 



IOWA. State Government. The State officers 

 during the year were the following: Govern- 

 or, Buren R. Sherman, Republican ; Lienten- 

 ant-Governor, O. H. Manning; Secretary of 

 State, John A. T. Hull; Treasurer, E. H. Con- 

 ger ; Auditor, John L. Brown ; Attorney- 

 General, Smith McPherson; Superintendent 

 of Public Instruction, John W. Akers ; Regis- 

 ter of Land -Office, James K. Powers; Railroad 

 Commissioners, A. R. Anderson, Peter A. Day, 

 and James Wilson, succeeded by L. S. Coffin. 

 Judiciary Supreme Court : Chief - Justice, 

 James G. Day ; Associate Justices, Austin 

 Adams, Joseph M. Beck, James H. Rothrock, 

 and William H. Seevers. 



The Prohibitory Amendment. The decision of 

 the Supreme Court, in the case of Koehler & 

 Lange against Hill (see " Annual Cyclopaedia " 

 for 1882), was rendered January 18th. It 



came to this court on appeal from the District 

 Court for Scott county, which gave judgment 

 for the plaintiffs for beer sold. Judge Seevers 

 delivered the opinion, of which the essential 

 points follow : 



At a special election on June 27, 1882, the elect- 

 ors of the State, by a majority of about 30,000, rati- 

 fied an amendment to the Constitution, which, it is 

 claimed, had been previously agreed to by the 18th 

 and 19th General Assemblies, prohibiting the manu- 

 facture and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, 

 including ale, wine, and beer. 



The question is fairly presented in the record in 

 this case whether the amendment aforesaid has been 

 constitutionally agreed to and adopted. The validity 

 of the amendment, and whether the same now consti- 

 tutes a part of the Constitution, depends upon the 

 question whether the 18th General Assembly agreed 

 to the amendment which was ratified and adopted by 

 the electors, and whether the amendment was agreed 

 to by the 18th General Assembly in the form and 

 manner required by the Constitution. 



The engrossed joint resolution, adopted by 

 both Houses of the Legislature of the 18th 

 General Assembly, and approved by the Gov- 

 ernor, was as follows : 



" No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or 

 keep for sale as a beverage, any intoxicating liquors 

 whatever, including ale, wine, and beer." 



This proposed amendment was ratified by the elect- 

 ors at a special election held on June 27, 1882. 

 Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the joint resolu- 

 tion at the time it was agreed to bv the Senate con- 

 tained the words "or to be used, and that it then 

 read as follows : 



' No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or 

 keep for sale as a beverage or to be used, any intoxi- 

 cating liquor whatever, including ale, wine, and 

 beer." 



The resolution claimed to have been agreed to by 

 the Senate is materially different in substance from 

 the one ratified by the electors. Counsel for the ap- 

 pellant do not claim this is not so, as shown by the 

 journals, but their contention is that the enrolled res- 

 olution signed by the Speaker of the House, President 

 of the Senate, and approved by the Governor, is a 

 verity, and is conclusive evidence that the resolution, 

 as enrolled, was agreed to by both Houses of the 18th 

 General Assembly, or, if this is not so, that the pre- 

 ponderance of the evidence is in favor oi the proposi- 

 tion that the resolution which was agreed to was cor- 

 rectly enrolled. The plaintiff contends that it is made 

 clear and certain by an examination of the Senate 

 journal that the words u or to be used" were in the 

 resolution when it passed the Senate, and that the 

 journal is the best evidence of such fact. 



There is no provision of the Constitution, nor is 

 there a statute which by implication requires that a 

 joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution 

 shall be signed by the presiding officers of the two 

 Houses. Such signing, therefore, is not essential, and 

 may be dispensed with. There is no provision of the 

 Constitution or statute which requires that -it shall be 

 enrolled. But there is a constitutional injunction, to 

 say the least, that it shall be entered on the journals. 

 In a constitutional sense the journals constitute and 

 are the primary evidence, and the enrolling and sign- 

 ing, as above stated, at best are only secondary evi- 

 dence, which may and can onlv be considered when 

 the primary evidence has been lost or destroyed. 



The journal of the House of the 18th General As- 

 sembly fails to set out or even show the substance of 

 the substitute or. amendment of the House joint reso- 

 lution which had been adopted by the Senate. Such 

 journal only sets out the original resolution which 

 had been introduced in the House, and shows simply 

 that the House concurred in the Senate- substitute, 



