Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-11-18

NEDGB EEmMmn mEGEmna NMR ReGaM
oPKRom Raw vAKEB.
The following decision resemtly ran-
teruA hg 1aaae Tuxner Is 81 gRsAs inl-
poEfnnee 70 tha p9apln Of tie IexzizoEy
and WI Be read With interest," Il viii
na sen that Judge Turner takes Rroands
TIE Eeyerss o. tnnss IN desizson Fen-
6FE1 ~ 11ire LanRf8r1. ard - pre-
ea1ts his visEs - . loeioal and sfEa-
mentatiEe manner.
AlFah ChursAiIl, ralator, W. the Board /
e ooantg OonlinizsinnsEa Of Yakima /
eganty. kSspcn3tnA
his b IN appliaakfon for 8 writ Of /
Eandamus % TIE Board Of Ooanty i
Oa1msssioners % compel that body 20 /
en4aEtain an1 4ct upun ~ Application i
nf tha rela4sE fer lieanse 10 retail /
liquor IN the precinct Of North Yakima. /
Yakima county. Said preeinc4. at the /
elsctioa provided for IN the Local Op
ton Act, voted fer pFohibition.
A rule havina heen granted requiring |
the resp0Bdefit 20 SHOW cause Why the
writ should nct issus. they new appear
and move 70 discharge the rule. he
qaeslisn presented u ne eass i shat Of
soc validity Of she Local Oplion Act. II
iha1 ast Be ezlid, ths rule Enazt Be dis
eharRed. II Invalid, the writ mnsi issue
e. prayed for By the relatOE.
Counsel for the FslatoF maintain that
sid ast b inValid because il Is q delega-
eipn 30 paopie q the several prseinets
Of legislative power. A veFy general
statement Of the several provisions OF
the Get will be sufficient 10 enAbls ons
% pasa intellieently on this ee lection.
A.. -
previaiong fer Submitting from tiDe -
eieRfi0n preeinots Of the TerTitarN, il
which fifteen resident eleeiors petition
therefor. the question whether or nos
Intoxicating liquors shall be sold In said
precincts.
Sectian 10 q as follows:
''Sec. 10. Shoald the result Of any
election under this at be 10 favor, b.
majority vote, Of the prohibition Of the
sale Of Intoxicating liquors IN any
election precinct IN this Territory, then
Is shall be unlawful for the Board Of
CeQ1ty Commissioners Of the eounty in
which sAid election preoinet 10 situated.
OF for the City Counsel Of any city or
Board Of Trustees u any town, on any
other authority, authorized By any iaW
OF this Territory, 10 grant licenses for
The sale Of Intoxicating liquor 70 any
persoD, hrm OF corporation 20 sell, bar
Ter OF dispose Of Intoxicating liquor in
the electiOn pEeeinc1 voting IN favor Of
prohibition" etc.
The remaining nine sections Of ibis
oct, some Of which provide penalties
for violation OF ice provisions, need n0t
be quoted or referred 70.
IL the Grat ten sections can Stand, it
ID plain that the Board Of County Con-
missioners have no authority TO grant
licenses in the precinct Of North Yaki-
ma, and We need not trouble ourselves
about the fate Of the 0thtF nine SEQ
kiOns.
Do any Of the provisions Of this Law
delegate leaislatige authority 20 the peo-
pie Of She revenue precincts Counsel
fof the relaaor, IN their bEi8f, aay ss1he
true eriteEio1 Of Whether or not there is
delegation Of authority, Is. does the
vote make or defeat the Law 2" Adopt
ing shis criterion, lt seems 20 me that
the vota in this case does not make the
Law, bat Il 10 the Law that makes the
vote. Every section Of the law 10 Of
force and will remain Of force until the
authority which enacted ID FePeala Il or
amends Il. The Law may have nothing
to operate on until some enc petitions
Tor an election under Il. IL cannot af-
fest the right Of any one to sell intox.
: icatinR liqaors until somepreciBct votes.
under its provisions. for prohibition.
But lie every provision il viFile and ef
teotive from the start, and will eontinue
until the end. The laws against murder
and highway robbery lie dormant until
some one chooses TO violate their pro-
visions. Yet, are they not vital and
foreeful al the time Does the muir.
dereE or robber bring she law into ex
istenee under which be il panished I
The idea that any provision OF this Law
Is dependent Tor its existence OF f0foe
and effect upon anything other than the
legislative will which brought ik into
existence, is q fallacy and cannot be
maintained. That the Law employs the
will Of the people as an instrumentalisy
IN carrying ont its purpose, there can be
no doubt, bat this Is entirely different
from making the existence or the Law
itself dependent upon the will Of the
people. And Why may not the will of
the people Of the several localities be
40 fundamentally upon which q cues.
ton Of policy can be lawfully made to
turn / have mot heard any good req
sen urged why this may NOS be done,
and do DOT believe that any exists. II
the discretion 10 determine the sale Of
intoxicanis can be lawfully vested IN
the council Of q city or She trustees OF
town, AZ is frequently done without
objection, il may be vested 10 a majority
Of the eleetora Of such city or town, oE
in the electors of election precincts.
These are my own views on the force
and effect Of eur Law. The question OF
the validity Of similar laws has been
passed by the courts OF last res0rt Of
many Of the States, and feel that the
Iqnestior am called upon 10 decide Is
u sufficient importance 10 justify an
extended oDnaidaration Of the decisions
Of the courts OF such States.
The latest case against such laws and
the one mOst equarely In point, Is &c.
parfe, VALE, 4s Gal, so Ths California
law which vas held invalid In the ease
iust mentioned wae very similar 10 oars.
| While have great respect for the de-
oisions Of the Supreme Court Of Cali
fornfa, | think IN this instance it failed
70 maintain IT, usual high standard Of
correct, logical thought. Tue aFgamant
sf counsel that the Law did not leave il
70 the people 10 give eject 10 the law, or
10 change she existing law, bat oniv 20
0etefmlne WhetneE licenses ed6uid be
Issued under existing Law, the eoRFt met
| thuas
The provisions Of the license Law re-
main IN full force until the vote IN favor
Of prohibition h counted and an
uounced; those provisions oeass 70 have
foFoe from the time the vote Il an
nounosd, u the majority IL agaiDss a.
oenee. Consequently, the exiatioR
lieenas Law, II changed at ell, ID changed,
not BY the Legislature, bot b. the vote
Of the people."
The foregoing Il q corReei statement
Of the argument advanced, bot net Of
tke language IN which Il Il clothed.
The argument 10 fallaoio1A TIE exist
inq licenae Law, under such an oct as
that passed In California and this Ter.
Fttegy, does not remain 10 full force IN
I'll the vota IN favor Of prohibition IA
counted and snnounoed. The license
law waa changed IN essential particulars