Mathews v. Turner , 212 Iowa 424 ( 1931 )

I concur in the holding of the majority on the question of the validity and constitutionality of House File No. 154 and also in what is said on the question of jurisdiction and the rights of the intervener.

On the question of the validity of the proposed amendment, upon the authority of the following cases, my conclusion is contrary to that of the majority and I respectfully dissent therefrom: Lobaugh v. Cook, 127 Iowa 181; Jones v. McClaughry, 169 Iowa 281; People v. Prevost, 134 Pac. (Colo.) 129; State v. Jones, 64 So. (Miss.) 241; Gabbert v. C.R.I. P. Ry. Co., 70 S.W. (Mo.) 891; People v. Sours, 74 Pac. (Colo.) 167; State v. Bd. of Commsrs., 87 Pac. (Mont.) 450; Hammond v. Clark, 71 S.E. (Ga.) 479; Martin v. Marion Co., 74 S.E. (S.C.) 983; State v. Brantley, 74 So. (Miss.) 662; Gottstein v. Lister, 153 Pac. (Wash.) 595; State v. Wetz, 168 N.W. (N.D.) 835; McBee v. Brady, 100 Pac. (Ida.) 97; State v. Powell, 27 So. (Miss.) 927; State v. Alderson, 142 Pac. (Mont.) 210; Crawford v. Gilchrist, 59 So. (Fla.) 963; State v. Mason, 9 So. (La.) 776; Power v. Robertson, 93 So. (Miss.) 769; State v. Thompson, 19 S.W. (2d Ser.) 642 (Mo.)

I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not invalid for any of the reasons stated in the majority opinion. I think that each and all of the provisions therein contained are germane to the main purpose and object thereof, and therefore valid.

I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Evans and Mr. Justice Morling join with me in the dissent.