The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1873-05-23
The COnstitutiOnality Of the seN
Temperance Law.

Judge Carlton. Of the Circuit comp,
ell OF Orange, Lawrence aud MOnr
counties, III the Orange Circuit Court
the request II the Prosecuting Attorns
prepared an elaborate opinion OF Z
new Temperance Law. lie held tll
the old law was In force IN regard
those liquor dealers holding license. Al
that they might be prosecuted for viol
lions OF the old law. but not OF the ne,
No prosecutions can hold against tho
not holding license for violations of n
old law. As Ia the constitutionality
the new law he held as follows:
MANY Of the Judges of this Stat
have had the provisions of this law be
fore them, for judicial Interpretation
aud ] believe that no two of them hav,
agreed throughout in their opinions an.
reasoning. Some of them. in endcavOr
ing 10 find their way out OF the labyrinth
have got lost in its devious passages
while Others. In their desperation to get
out, have broken down the partition
walls by main force. l have now done
the hest l can TO put q construction on
the law. aud perhaps l have succeeded
no better than others but the cOnclu-
aicms have arrived at are the result of
considerable reflection and examination.
pursued with anxious desire to arrive
ut . correct legal exposition, and having
due regard for the protection of the
rights Of the people and the conserya-
ton Of public morality and virtue.
ut has been urged that the new tenn
perance law Is unconstitutional upon
various grounds. have considered all
THAI has been advanced on this subject.
and examined many decisions. and upon
the weight of authority l am not able TO
pronounce this law Unconstitutional =
The case Of Maize VS.. The State. 4th In
diana, p. 342. do not consider at all i'm
point. In that case the decision was ap-
Piled to law which authorized the
people Of any township BY majority
vote to prohibit the granting of license
to all persons during year. within the
township. The new temperance law
allows any person to have a .permit'l
who procures majority Of the legal
voters to sign petition certifying that
ne Is proper person, sc. Some per.
sons may succeed in procuring the re.
quislte number Of names, while others
may not, just as under former laws.
Some persons might have procured the
signatures Of twcmty-four freeholdcrs."
whlie others might not. do not con-
'ider the requirement Of majority off
The voters signing the petition as a dele
cation Of legislative authority. This
'cf, as soon as it was signed by the Gov
'rhOr had all the essential elements Of n
complete law. 1t was nut into forc
md effect by legislative authority. II
'cquircd nothing further to put it inI
orce as law. The action Of the sign
re 70 the petition 81 required only for
ne purpose Of applying the law already
'ut INTO Iorce aud effect by the lcgisla-
ure, to particular persons who apply
or the permit just as similar action
y the people Is required to the laws in
eference to the relocation of county
eats, local taxation in aid Of railroads.
&C., which have been decided by our
supreme Court to be constitutional. In.
Iced. these cases may fairly be consid.
red rs overruling the case of Maize VS..
he State. See the Lafayette NJ. & u.
:. Il. 20. vs.. Giger, 34th Indiana. d.
THE constitutional power Of the Leg
Nature to regulate the selling Of iutoxi- :
ating liquor has been so long and so ,
fen recognized, as to be no longer
pen to dispute.
"Our first State Legislature which
net at Corytlon on the first Monday ~
november, 1916, passed q law to regu- :.
ste the retailing Of liquors. and from |;
nat time to this, a period Of more than
ny-six years, we have always had such
Tvs on the Statute Book. The first
olume Of Blackford's Reports, D. SO.
A. ID. 1872 contains n decision on the
liquor Law and each one Of the suc-
eeding forty-two volumes Of our Su-
RENE Court Reports, shows that This r
- always been considered a nroncr :
lbject Of legislation. "
1t Is not every law that is unreasona- :,
le or oppressive that can be pronounce 3
4 unconstitutional
This Temperance Law has been dc.
berntely enacted by the Legislature.
in snr theory of Govern :
tent, the will Of the people. The Gov.
NOR, whatever may have been his view
the wisdom or propriety Of some of
'e provisions Of the bill. did not find il
be 20 plainly unconstitutional AZ to
lstify the executive veto.
I'm . case of doubtful constitutionality.
le duty Of the courts has been plainly
naked out by the highest judicial an n
'orities, State and National. For cx- n
npie, IN the case of Brown VS.. Busan.
TN Ind, p. le4, our Supreme Court T
'es the following language: The Court .
louId not strike down an act of tho It
legislature for unconstitutionality. nm to
So 1t Is CLEARLY in conflict with thc ma
The acts of the Lcgis,a. oa
re are cntitlod a., .o.,,~.. - the