The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-26

that we should override it in deciding this case.
1t may be remarked, however, that there are sew
eral cases where legislation similar to
the statute of 1853, which was in question in the
Maize case, has been held to be constitutional
and valid"
And the court cite the cases of Clark VS.. The
City of Rochester. "a Barbour, page 446. and %
New York. page COS; Locke's Appeal, 72IPennsyl-
vania State Reports, page 491; Bancroft VS.. Du.
mont q Vermont page 456; the State ex rel
Sanford vs. Norris Court Of Common Pleas, 36
New JERSEY e. Vroom) page 72; ID American
Reports. 422. All of which are in direct conflict
with the Maize case. 1t would, doubtless,
have been moro in accordance with ju-
the Maize case had ceased to be re-
garded and recognized as sound law. But since
the decision sustaining the localopton feature of
the Baxter law AZ Indiana, page 547l, numerous
decisions sustaining local-option laws have been
rendered in nearly all the States where such
laws have been enacted. Judge Pryor, in a re-
cert decision by the Court Of Appeals of Ken
lucky, says:
Numerous authorities may be found denying
the power Of the Legislature to give to the peo-
pie of particular locality the right by popu-
lar vote, to control the sale of intoxicating
liquors under the provisions of what COM
monty called local-option laws. Many of these
decisions have been reconsidered and overruled,
and now the decided weight of authority sps
tains the constitutionalty of such legislation"
Judge Pryor, in another part of the same de-
cision. says:
THE right of local taxation for the purposes
of internal improvement in aid of corporations,
In nearly every case in this State, has been made
to depend on the contingency of popular vote;
and this character of legislation has been sus-
tanned by repeated adjudieations of this court"
tSee % American Reports, .. 410)
In our own State. county and township dona-
tons to aid in building railroads have, by vari-
Gus laws been made to depend upon popular
vote, and all these laws have been sustained by
our courts notwithstanding the ruling in the
Maize case. Judge Cooley, in his able work ON
Constitutional Limitations, collates all the author
tiles on the subject of local option laws and says
that the constitutionality of such laws is settled
by the decided weight of authority;
of his own sanction to these decisions
The constitutionality of local option laws. in
some form or other, is now firmly established by
the highest courts in New York, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Georgia,
Arkansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan,
and we may regard it as being established by the
late decisions in Indiana. 1t is not therefore to
hold carefully-framed local option law uncon-
stitutional. AS to the fourth feature We have
specified. who will dare to urge that the State
should license or permit any one to sell
Intoxicating liquors to habitual drunkards under
any circumstances whatever? There ought to
qualified prohibition, enforced by the severest
penalties, Of the sale of Intoxicating liquors to
habitual drunkards, leaving it to courts and
Jurles to determine who are habitual drunkards,
as they determine any other fact. l venture
to predict that the Legislature that will enact
law embracing the provisions 1 have indicated
will receive the plaudits of this gene ration as
fully it will meri. the gratitude of generations
to come. p. S. KENNEDY
CRAWSFORDSvILLE, Ind.