Page:History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Volume 3.djvu/151

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

prohibitory laws and to secure the election of members of the next Legislature who should provide such additional legislation as would be deemed necessary to fully enforce the decision of the people in favor of prohibition. An address was issued to the saloon keepers and liquor dealers of the State urging them to discontinue a business that had been outlawed by a vote of the people and by the laws and Constitution of the State.

But the liquor dealers had no intention of abandoning the fight. A case was made up in Scott County to test in the courts the validity of the late constitutional amendment. Koehler & Lange, brewers, brought suit before Judge Walter I. Hayes at the October term of the District Court, for the collection of a bill for beer sold to John Hill, a saloon keeper in Davenport. All of the parties, as well as the attorneys, were known to be unfriendly to the prohibitory laws and the suit attracted little attention. But when the arguments were submitted the friends of prohibition saw that a powerful effort was being made before the unfriendly court to overthrow the amendment to the Constitution. The position taken by the counsel for the plaintiff was, that the amendment had not been passed by the Eighteenth and Nineteenth General Assemblies in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and consequently was invalid. Judge Hayes held that the amendment was not legally enacted and was therefore not a part of the Constitution. The friends of prohibition were now thoroughly aroused to the danger and employed Judge W. E. Miller to appear in the case which had been appealed to the Supreme Court. Governor Sherman directed Attorney-General McPherson to appear for the State and in December the case was heard by the Supreme Court. J. C. Bills and Wright, Cummins & Wright appeared as the attorneys attacking the validity of the amendment. On the 18th of January, 1883, the Court rendered its decision and to the great surprise of the pub-