The Russellville Democrat., 1879-03-13
THE LOCAL OPTION LIQUOR
 LAW.
Judge Jacoway.s Opinion.
state of Arkansss ys. Joseph Goodman.

Under the provisions oi an act oI the Legislature, approved on the 2d of March, 1875 and known as the Local Option Law" majority of the aiuit residents of Dardanelle township, petitioned the County Court of Yell county, at the October term 1876, of sad court, to make an order prohibiting the sale or giving away, of spurious liquors within three miles of the Dardanelle Insti ttte, an incorporated institution of learning. The prayer of the peti- tion was granted and an order was, by tue County Court made and en, tered of record at the October term, 1876, of the County Court, declaring shat from henceforth, it shall not be lawful to vend or give away any spiritous llquor within the limits aforesaid. Afterwards and at the February term, 1878, of the Yell Cir. cult Court for the Dardanelle dis trict, the defendant was indicted for q violation of said order and at the following August term of the Circuit Court appeared and demurred to the indictment. The only question pre- sented by the demurrer is, whether the act in question is constitutional and valid. The defendant insists that it is local and special law and as such contravenes the letter and spirit of the constitution of 1874, ,and that it was an unauthorized delega- tion by the legislature of Legislative power; that the proceedings of the County court, under the provisions of the act referred to, were legisla. tive in their character, and that local option laws are in derogation of the Constitution of 1874. Many cases involving the constitutionality of To- cal option laws have been adjudica ted in many of the states of the Union, but these decisions unfortu- nately, are of contradictory charac- tor and in many cases directly in conflict with eachother, and the has ty and limited examination which 1 have made or these adjudicated cas
 es tended more to perplex and em- barrass than to aid me in the inves tigation which I have been called upon to make, By the Constitution of Arkansas the legislative power is vested in the general assembly, com
 posed of the senate and the house of renresentativcs They must exer
 else all the legislative authority in the enactment of laws, and the legis- lature being vested with exclusive Legislative power cannot delegate tue trust reposed in the legislative branch of the government. The legislature cannot propose a law and submit it to the people to pass or re
 ject it by general vote, for that would, in effect, amount to legisa
 tion blythe people. However, law complete in itself may be passed to take effect in future contingency or upon the happening of an event, and the contingency or future event which affords the occasion for the exercise of the power gives no addi- tional efficacy to the law after it has left the legislative power and has been approved by the Governor, for the law derives it's whole vigor and vitality from the legislative will.
 The eorereign power of the State has located the law making power in the general assembly; there it must remain, ana no body but the legisla- ture is authorized to make or repea. a law. But N is not always essen tial that a leg 9slative act should be a completed statute which must Tn any event take effect as law at the timeit leaves the hanls of the legislative department. A statute may be con
 ditional, and its taking effect may be made to depend upon some subse- quent event. Affirmative legislation
 may, in some casss be adopted, of which the parties interested are at liberty to avail themselves or not, at their option. Cooley, Con Lim l42. Numerous authorities are found de
 nying the power ot the legislature to glve to tine people of a particular To-
 cality the right by q popular exprcs- sion to control the sale of intoxica- ting hquors under the provisions of Local option laws similar to the statute under confederation many of these decisions have been reconsid-
 cred, and now, Undecided weight of authority sustains the constitution
 ality of such legislation. While the
 law making power cannot delegate to the people the right to assemble and frame such laws as may be deemed best for theil own interest,
 and to adopt them bi a popular ex
 plession of the peopl, it is not in
 consistent with our representative system of government to consult the popular will as to thepsopriety of law already enacted. Smith vs. Janesville 26, Wis. 2A -Cooley Con. Linn. l42, l52. Whq the act under consideration passed the legislature and was signed by tb executive it then became law, ad by reason of the law, the people, he adult resi- dents of any township of any county Tn the State, interesta in it's pass age, were fully authdzed to avail themselves of it's protsions in the I f