THE CONSTITUTION MAKES NO OTHER PLACE A DEPOSITORY
for the proposed amendment. On this point, the Supreme Court of Iowa says:
"Now suppose a member of either House had, while it was in session, really proposed the amendment in question in the form it was agreed to by the electors and it had been entered at length on the journal and agreed to, and the amendment so entered bad been correctly copied and properly transmitted to the other House, entered at length on its journal, and agreed to and published, as provided by the Constitution and law, and the subsequent General Assembly had agreed thereto as required by the Constitution, and the same submitted to the electors, as was done, could it be said, it was not Constitutionally adopted because it was not enrolled, signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses, and approved by the Governor? If it can be so said, why or for what reason? Suppose the Governor had vetoed the joint resolution and returned it with his objections to the House in which it originated, and, upon being put on its passage, it had failed to receive a two-thirds majority In one or both Houses as provided in Article 3, Section 16, of the Constitution would this have been fatal to the amendment? No one will so contend. It was not essential, therefore, that the Governor should have approved the joint resolution; 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 a signing therefore is not essential, and may be dispensed with. There is no provision of the Constitution or statute which requires 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 signing, as above stated, at best are only secondary evidence, which may and can only be considered when the primary evidence has been lost or destroyed."
Is not this conclusive of the question? and can any lawyer who sits here as a Judge come to any other conclusion ?
A few words as to the decision of our own Supreme Court in Evans vs. Brown. 30 Indiana page. That case was in all respects different from this. That question was as to the validity of an act passed by the Legislature. It was duly signed by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and approved by the Governor, and duly filed in the office of the Secretary of State. The journal of the House showed a quorum present at the last roll-call before the passage of the act. Forty-two members, I believe, resigned in the afternoon and handed their resignations to Governor Baker. He did not notify the House unto next day f their resignation; in the meantime the bill had been passed. There was nothing to show that a quorum was not present when the bill passed, and the presumption of law was in favor of its legality. The Court presumed the officers performed their duty irrespective of the Constitution. But the
