The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-02-28
TEMPERANCE DEPARTMENT.
EDITED BY THE woMEN's CHRISTIAN
TEMPERANCE UNION.
LOCAL OPTION

EDITED BY THE WOMEN's CHRISTIAN
TEMPERANCE UNION.
LOCAL OPTION.
To the Editor of the State:
!. I am, at home, a daily reader Of your val
liable journal, and was much surprised to
find in it some two or three days ago your
''Locall Option" Your article
is SO full of error that,I respectfully forward
you the exception, with my request that
you publish it, as / take it for granted that
you do not wish. to, mislead your readers.
In your second paragraph you affirm 1.-THE
Legislature has no constitutional right to
authorize citizens. .of any city,ss. town
county, or parts Of the same to adopt OPP
pressive and discriminating laws"
And this doctrine you emphatically re-
affirm in your concluding paragraph. You
say:
''The. Legislature has no more power
to grant to cities, towns, counties, FOR parts
of the same the privilege of adopting OPP
pressive and discriminating laws than it
as to violate the Constitution or repudiate
the Bill of Rights"
Of course you believe in this doctrine
and would have your readers to believe
likewise. In reply give you the follow
ing compilation of unquestionable author
tiles. And when to. these are. added the
frequent exercise Of the power by the Leg
islature for some years without judicial
question, it seems to me that you must in
candor admit that the constitutional right
of the Legislature to pass a local option
bill is res adBudicata and no longer an open
question
lFrom the Religious Herald.l
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOCAL OPTION
LAWS.
This question has been decided at least
three times in the United States Supreme
Court. 1t was passed upon as early as
1847, and in delivering his opinion Chief
Justice fancy used this language: "And
if any State deems the retail and Internal
traffic in ardent spirits injurious to it's
citizens, and calculated to produce idle
ness, vice or debauchery, see nothing In
the. Constitution Of the United States to
prevent it from regulating and restraining
the traffic or from prohibiting it altogether,
if it thinks proper" 18th Howard, p. 577.)
The question, som ewhat modified, was be-
fore the Supreme Court again in 1866, and
the constitutionality of prohibitory legis-
lation was a second time affirmed. 18th
Wallace, PIP. AIS, 476.) In 1873, another
case arose under the then recently adopted
fourteenth amendment, which declares
that mo State shall make or enforce any
law which shall ..abridge the privileges OF
immunities, of citizens of the United
Stetes.'' The Court held that the power of
a State to prohibit the sale of intoxicating
liquors could not be questioned under the
Constitution, and that the right to sell
such liquors was not one of the privileges
and immunities guaranteed by the four
tenth amendment to that instrument.
18th Wallace, p. 1891
Some legislators, again. have objected to
the principle Of local option as unconsti-
tutional, because it gives to the people "a
legislative power which, by the Constitn-
tion, is lodged in the Legislature alone
But this point, too, has been raised and
decided in the courts. This Identical
question arose under the local option laws
of Maryland, and the Court of Appeals
held that these laws were constitutional
and valid; and their going into effect and
becoming operative, being made dependent
on the result of popular vote, was not
delegation of legislative power to the, peo-
pie. (42d Md, p. 72.l The same principle
was settled by the Virginia Court of APP
peals in 1855, when the question was raised
before them whether the Legislature could
pass an act establishing free school in q
particular district, and then enact that its
existence as law should be made condi-
tional upon it's approval by the people.
The Judges then composing our highest
court-as learned, I suppose, as any who
have ever adorned the bench of Virginia
all concurred in the opinion that the act
was valid and constitutional law. Judge
Lee, in giving the opinion of the Court,
declared: ITO say in such g. case that the
act is made by the voters and not by the
Legislature, is to disregard all proper dis
functions, and involves an utter confusion
Of ideas on the subject" So that, in Vir-
ginia, at least, the principle underlying the
prohibition of the liquor traffic by local
option has already received the endorse
ment Of her highest tribunal.
JOHN POLLARD, JR.
I don't wish to extend this article be
yond your limits andi I, therefore, briefly
say that local option is nothing more and
nothing less than the privilege granted to
the people Of a county or any magisterial
district thereof, of expelling fnom their
midst any rum-shop that they may think
injurious to the peace, order and we'll being
Of their society? And is this simple pow
er, to be exercised by the sovereign people
fortheir protection against crying evil.
Of which they are the best judges, and
from which they alone will suffer, to be
denied them9 But you say 1.-THE legis-
lation of individual morals is an abomina-
ton to free people, and then you add,
'sThe prohibition Of anything out of which
wrong can come will hardly be accepted as
a principle by the people, And when you
add, "These cal-optionists go too far.
They ask for the adoption of law by
which they shall be allowed to play upon
the fears and doubts of the people in their
neighborhoods in order to car
ry on their hopeless fanaticism." So that
it would seem that, even should the bill
become a law, you have but little appre-
hension that it will be enforced. But let
it pass.
Are you aware, my dear Editor, that al
cohol shortens human life that drinkers
even moderate drinkers transmit their
to their children; that they are
the first victims in pestilence, and that
it is agreed by judges, prosecuting attor-
neys, police officers, philanthropists and
physicians that of all the crimes against
society seven-eights of them, at least, are
traceable to che use of intoxicating