The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1872-05-28
Local Option. f"

A law was passed last winter giving the
29d ward of Philadelphia q local option law.
The constitutionnlity of this law was re-
Gently argued before the court of Common
Pleas, and the decision of the court was
in favor of the law. The question was
brought before the court on the application
of dealer for a Mandamus to compel the
Commissioners to grant him license. The
following is an abstract of the opinions.
The opinion of the Court was read by President
Judge Allison.
lie iirst stated the general question as presented
to the Court, and then proceeded to say that the
Legislature OF PENNSYLVANIA had an undoubted
right to egisate upon the subject OF the sale of in
toxicating liquors, because there was nowhere to
be found In the Constitution OF the State or OF the
United states prohibition against such legislation
IL was only matter of police regulation, which
was clearly within the scope OF legislative power
Whether the General Assembly would prohibit the
sale Of liquor throughout the State was not the
question before the Court.
The simple subject of present consideration was
whether the Legislature could prohibit the sale
within the Twentythird ward OF this city. If for
the safety, prosperity and happiness OF the people
the Legislature would direct that no powder MILL
petroleum factory or other such place should be
erected in densely populated district, why could
district.
not proper to urge its hardship, for judicial tr
bunal was bound to strict construction Of funda-
mental document-the Constitution. 1t was
was not prohibited from doing by, the Constitu-
ton 1t certainly had the power to do There was
no word In our Constitution withholding from the
Legislature the power which they have in this In
The REALTORS had cited in their argument the
decision of the Supreme Court in Parker VS.. The
Commonwealth. This case, even though IL had
not been seriously shaken by subsequent deciS-
The eU e ss ndrS S S 5h thf
case was purely inferential, and would not fit
But that 1t was not to rule the present question:
was evident from the very fact that OF all the
similar laws to this that have been passed since
oe agessOn n9t no one nas ~ oeen gecuea 10 pc M
have been sustained by the Supreme Court though
they involved the select Ions OF sites for townships
the establishment OF schools the making OF jus.
tces OF the Peace, the erection OF public buildings
and territorial consultations.
Though Parker's case has not been overruled by
name, yet the Supreme Court have since in the
clearest manner given effect to principle, which
was not then considered, Many decisions of the
| judges assertionl These cases undoubtedly
threw doubt upon the authority OF Parker's
doubt alone would induce the Court to affirm the
constltutionality OF the act OF March 3lS72 stat
ue can certainly be made conditional, and 1t is Of
no moment whatever whether the condition be an
| earthquake or q vote by the people
This act Is law Of itself, defining an offence
and prescribing penalty without vote of the
I
awo enacti The prohibition was Of the sale
OF liquor without license, and a penalty was at
tached to that, and, though there. had been no
vote OF the people on it, this prohibition and PEN
| atty would have been effective Besides, this act
authorizes the citizens to hold an election and pre-
| scribes the duties OF the election officers.
And, therefore, it was not true in fact, to say
| that the act was inert and nanimate when 1t left
| the hands of the Legislature 1t was as perfect
law as any by which we elect the President of the
S1 sSbegst gtes a Se RSeaSy sSs o
which stood as good until repealed.
The relator was bound to establish the uncons IT,
| tutiOnality Of the law. The learned counsel had
failed TO do this TO the satisfaction of the Court
| and therefore his demurrer was Overrued.
DISSENTING OPINION.
Judge Ludlow read dissenting opinion, in
which he said he could not see how this case was
to be decided independently of the decision in
Parker's case. He thought that case ruled this.
There 1t had been declared that the Legislature
could not delegate Its powers to the vote OF the
people.
And therefore, II the Legislature had acted upon
this subject and kept within constitutional bounds
1t should have said whether liquor should be sold
In this ward or not, but not have left Ii TO be de-
cided by the people He thought this matter was
ruled by Parker's case and therefore respectfully
Il HI