THE LEGISLATION OF THE THIRTY-EIGHTH

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF IOWA

[The following review of the legislation of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly was compiled under the direction of The State Historical Society of Iowa. An acknowledgment of helpful assistance is due the many members of the House and Senate and other public officials who responded to our requests for statements regarding the purposes of the statutes.— EDITOR.]

The Thirty-eighth General Assembly of Iowa convened at Des Moines in regular session on January 13, 1919, and adjourned ninety-seven days later on April 19th.1 Both houses were in actual session seventy-eight working days, during which time there were introduced 1118 bills and 16 joint resolutions- of which 545 bills and 11 joint resolutions originated in the Senate, and 573 bills and 5 joint resolutions in the House of Representatives. Of the 1134 measures considered, it appears that 406 acts and 7 joint resolutions passed both houses and were approved by the Governor no less than 142 receiving the executive signature after the date of adjournment. Moreover, 201 of the measures that gained enactment originated in the Senate, and 212 in the House. Ninety-four Senate bills failed to pass the House, while only 58 House bills failed to pass the Senate. The Senate acted upon 626 measures, and the House upon 589.

1 The regular session of the Thirty-fifth, Thirty-sixth, and Thirty-seventh General Assemblies also lasted ninety-seven days. Since the compensation of members of the General Assembly was fixed at $1000 in 1911 the length of the regular session has never exceeded one hundred days, so that the salary amounts to about $10 a day. The maximum compensation of $10 a day for extra sessions was established in 1913; but the pay of Senators and House managers in the trial of an impeachment case remains $6 a day as established in 1886 — a bill to increase the compensation to $15 a day having failed to pass the House in 1919. Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 113, 1911, p. 1, 1913, p. 4; House Journal, 1919, p. 1667.

Thus it will be seen that approximately thirty-six per cent of the bills introduced in either house gained enactment, though the House passed more than forty-six per cent of its own measures and the Senate passed more than fifty-three per cent of the Senate bills. From these figures it would appear that bills introduced in either house of the legislature have about equal chances of enactment; but bills introduced in the smaller branch have a better chance of passing one house. The Senate seems to be able to dispose of business with more expedition than the House.

The record of bills enacted shows that 116 acts, being deemed of immediate importance, were declared to be in effect upon publication in designated newspapers; while the remaining 297 measures became effective on July 4, 1919, unless otherwise indicated.2

While the size of the legislative body seems to bear little relation to the total number of measures introduced, the number of bills presented by the individual member is, roughly speaking, inversely proportional to the size of the house. For example, the average number of bills per member introduced in the Senate of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly was approximately seven and one-fifth, while the average number per member introduced in the House was four and four-fifths. Likewise the largest number of bills introduced in the Senate by any one member was 38, while in the House the largest number was 26. There were three members of the Senate and twelve of the House who did not present a single bill. While it was proposed in the Thirty-seventh General Assembly to limit the number of bills any one member might introduce, no measures of that character appear to have come before the Thirty-eighth General Assembly.

Most of the legislation of the Thirty-eighth General As2 Index and History of Senate and House Bills, 1919, p. 3.

sembly, unlike that of other recent Assemblies, was passed before the last week of the session. Before April 14th, action up to the stage of enrollment had been taken by both houses on 280 measures. While a total of 133 measures were passed during the last week of the session, only 32 of these acts passed both houses during that time. Moreover, of the 133 measures upon which one or both houses took final action during the last week of the session, 10 were introduced in January, 48 in February, 39 in March, 32 between April 1st and April 14th, and only four during the last week of the session. Although it appears that one or both houses took final action upon approximately one-third of the legislation of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly during the last week of the session, it is obvious that the vast majority of these measures had been under consideration for periods varying from seven to twelve weeks. Sifting committees were appointed in both houses on April 4th.3

In general the legislation of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly differs little from the usual output. The number of legalizing acts amounted to only 39- which is in striking contrast to the 102 enacted by the Thirty-seventh General Assembly. Only 152 enactments consist of entirely new legislation, while 261 are repealing or amendatory acts. The Thirty-eighth General Assembly repealed or amended seventy-three sections of the Code of 1897, two hundred and twenty sections of the Supplement to the Code of Iowa, 1913, sixty-eight sections of the Supplemental Supplement to the Code of Iowa, 1915, sixty-three sections of the Acts of the Thirty-seventh General Assembly, and one section each of the acts of the Sixteenth and Thirty-sixth General Assemblies making a total of four hundred and twentysix sections. Furthermore, it is an interesting fact that 3 Senate Journal, 1919, p. 1602; House Journal, 1919, p. 1647.

the Thirty-eighth General Assembly repealed or amended, entirely or in part, ten of its own enactments.

CODIFICATION AND PRINTING OF THE LAWS

The second bill introduced in both the House and the Senate provided for the codification of the laws of the State. Neither of these bills gained enactment, but a substitute measure introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee No. 2 was finally agreed to by both houses. This act provides for the creation of a Code Commission consisting of the Supreme Court Reporter and two other persons to be appointed by the Governor. Employment of additional assistance by the Commission was authorized; and the commissioners were allowed $25 a day and traveling expenses. The work of compiling and codifying the laws of the State was to begin on or before April 1, 1919, and be completed by December 1, 1919. By January 1, 1920, the Commission is required to submit a report to the General Assembly calling attention to all repealed laws and to "such portions of the laws as may be found to be conflicting, or redundant or ambiguous or such as otherwise require legislative action to make clear". Comments and recommendations of the Commission were also to be included in their report to the General Assembly. Owing to the "great necessity for the adoption" of a revised code the Governor is requested to call an extra session of the General Assembly in January, 1920, or soon after.

According to the interpretation of the act by the Commissioners they are first to prepare a compilation of the laws of the State, omitting all acts of a local or temporary character, all repealed legislation, and all annotations and court decisions. The report to the General Assembly is

4 The Code Commission consists of J. H. Trewin, J. C. Mabry, and U. G. Whitney.