Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1881-06-16

| y
tial features Of all laws.
Then law can not have full
force and effect, can not be opera
tive. its penal provisions being
stricken ont or rendered nngatory
In fact, it is not law at a. with
out those provisions.
If this position be correct, judge
MerrimoE' premises may be con
ceded, ard from them the absolute
unconstitutionality of the law be
infallibly deduced. For, under
the provisions of the act, it ap
pears that the people, through
! tn cir votes at the polls, as cast
"for or against Prohlbitlon," are
relied upon to render the pena'
provisions of the act operative ol
imperative, therefore. the people
SO acting, render the law operative
or imperative; therefore, the peo-
pie are exercising Legislative
powers assumed to be delegated to
them by the Legislature, and there
tore the act is unconstitutional.
This is logic if it is not law. ]
think it will be found to be law,
too; for a great jurist once said to
the writer, Find me the equity OF
matter and / will find you the
law for it. Here logic and equity
are alike against Judge Merrimon
Again, the simple statement of
the question shows upon its face
clearly that the attempt to submit
the penal provisions of the act to
the decision OF the voters at the
ballot box is in reality an attempt
TO del gate legislative power to the
people in such a manner as to
avoid and evade constitutional
limitations. This, | take it, is an
expedlent the resort to VIII ich
would not be sustained by the
courts. 1t is a manifest subterfuge
and would be as obnoxious alik e to
law and common sense.
i have thus stated but the brief
est outline Of the case that can be
made against the bill from this
standpoint In other respects, not
touched upon by Judge Merrimon,
it is fatally faulty.
l think it is legally automatic
that laws must be read in the light
thrown on them by other laws CO.
existent with them on the same
statute books. 1t cannot be denied
that between certain provisions OF
the Revenue Act, passed at the
same session Of the Legislature,
and those Of the Prohibition A ct,
there is direct and fatal conflict.
1t will be observed, too, that the
Revenue Act bears a date subse
quent to that of the Prohibition.
Act, and of course cannot directly
or by implication be held as re-
pealed by the provisions Of the
earlier enactment En- fact it
might be held with some force, l
think, that the Prohibition Act is
absolutely repealed by the Reve-
nue. Act. The same conflict exists
between the provisions of the older
Revenue Act, passed at the pre-
vious session of the Legislature,
and the Prohibition Act.
1t is under these Revenue Acts
that liquor dealers are licensed for
periods extending in most instances
many months beyond that fixed by
the Prohibition Act as the time
when it shall take effect, viz: Oc-
tober LIST, 1881.
Now, suppose A took ont State
and county licenses for the prose
cution Of business as a retail dealer
in liquors, for one year, on the
1st day of January, 1881, comply
ing with all the legal require.
ments, and paying the tax named
therefor in the Revenue Act then
in operation.
Suppose 3 in like manner shall
take cut licenses for one year, OH
the 1st day of August, 1881. as lie
clearly has the right to do under
the present Revenue Act.
Query: In the absence of any
provision of the Prohibition Act
repeating so much Of the Revenue
acts as these vendors are excrcis
ing their rights under, in gooc
faith, and in the absence of any
other law to that end provided
where is the authority to estoI
them from trading under their Ii
censes, so obtained, before January
1st and August 1st, 1882. respec
tiyely2 It is not in the Prohibi
ton Act, whether the peo. le max,
or mar the penal provisions. 1t i
not In either Revenue Act, and i
is not deducible from any provision
Of either.
4 If it be claimed that B had no
tice of the possible vitiation of hi
licenses, by the proposed action 0
the people at the poll; ana SO too
them at his own risk, the answe
is manifest. IFe- was not bound t
take any snch notice of a possibl
or t>rospective law in conflict wit