ing which had been filed by Judge C. C. Nourse and J. A. Harvey in February. Able and exhaustive arguments were made for the validity of the amendment by James F. Wilson, John F. Duncombe and C. C. Nourse and against it by John C. Bills. The majority of the Court, however, adhered to its former opinion and the amendment was finally set aside as invalid. In relation to a new point raised by the counsel for the prohibitionists, that it was not competent for the Court to determine whether an amendment to the Constitution was legally adopted where a majority of the legal voters had approved the amendment, the Court uses the following language:
“No heresy has ever been taught in this country so fraught with evil as the doctrine that the people have a constitutional right to disregard the Constitution. It ends to revolution and anarchy. It is incumbent upon all who influence and mould public opinion to repudiate so dangerous a doctrine before it bears fruit destructive of republican institutions. The cause of temperance can sustain no injury from the loss of this amendment which would be at all comparable to the injury to our republican institutions which a violation of the Constitution would inflict. Whatever interests may be advanced or may suffer, whoever or whatever may be voted up or down, no sacrilegious hand must be laid upon the Constitution. Abidingly and firmly convinced of the correctness of our former conclusions, recognizing no superior higher than the Constitution, acknowledging no fealty greater than loyalty to its principles and fearing no consequences except those which would flow from dereliction of duty, we adhere to and affirm the doctrine already announced. The petition for a rehearing is overruled.”
The friends of prohibition were sorely disappointed by this affirmation of the former decision as it would require nearly five years to secure a new amendment to the Constitution. The more practical among them, however, saw that the Legislature had ample power and undisputed authority to enact as rigid prohibition without a change in the Constitution, as it would had the amendment been held valid. The contest must now be made direct in the choice of members of the next Legislature and the Gov-
