Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-11-26
ANOTHER DECISION.
The COnstitutiOnality of the Local
Option Law Sustained.


The decision of Judge Turner, OF the
Fourth District, in the case of Alvah
Churchill, relator, VS.. The Board OF
County Commissioners, Of Yakima
county, respondent, in which he takes
ground and rules directly opposite tC
Judge Langford on the local option
law, is herewith given for the benefit
of our readers:
This is an application for writ OF
mandamus to the Board OF County
Commissioners to compel that body
to entertain and act on the application
of the relator for license to retail
liquor in the precinct of North Yak
ina, Yakima county. Said precinct
at the election provided for III the To-
cal option act" voted for prohibition.
A rule having been granted requir-
ing the respondents to show causes
why the writ should not issue, they
now appear and move to discharge the
rule. The question presented i'll the
| case is that of the validity of the 10.
cal option act" Ii that act be valid
the rule must be discharged. If in
valid, the writ must issue as prayed
for by the relator.
Counsel for the relator maintain
that said act is invalid because it is a
delegation to the people of the several
precincts of Legislative power. A very
general statement of the several pro.
| visions of the act will be sufficient tC
enable one to pass intelligently on this
objection.
Sections one to nine inclusive make
provisions for submitting from time tC
time to the people of the respective
| election precinct. in the Territory, in
which fifteen resident electors petition
therefor, the question whether or not
intoxicating liquors shall be sold in
said precincts.
Section ten Q0) is as follows:
"SEc. 10. Should the result of any
election under this act be in favor by
il majority vote of the prohibition ol
the sale OF Intoxicating liquors in any
election precinct in this Territory
then it shall be unlawful for the Board
of County Commissioners of the coun
ty in which the said election precinct
is situated, or for the City Council ol
any city or Board of Trustees of any
town, or any other authority, author
lied by any law of this Territory, to
grant licenses for the sale of OfintOxieat
ing liquor to any person, firm or cor
poration to sell, barter or dispose Of i'll
toxicating liquor in the election pre-
cinct voting in favor of prohibition,
! etc.
The remaining nine sections of this
act, some of which provide penalties
for violation of its provisions, need not
be quoted or referred to.
If the first ten sections can stand, il
is plain that the Board of County Com
missioners have no authority to grant
licenses to the precinct of North Yak.
ina, and we need not trouble ourselves
about the fate of the other nine sec.
| tions.
Do any of the provisions of this law
delegate legislative authority to the
people of the several precincts
Counsel for the relator, in their brief
say: "The true criterion of whether
or not there is delegation of author.
| itv is, does the vote make or defeat the
law?" Adopting this criterion, it
seems to me that the vote in this case
does not make the law, but that it is
the law that make the vote. Every
section of the law is of force and will
remain of force until the authority
which enacted it repeals it or amends
it. The law may have nothing to op
crate on until some one petitions fol
an election under it. 1t cannot affect
the right of any one to sell intoxicat'
ing liquors until some precinct votes
under its provisions, for prohibition
But its every provision is virile and
effective from the start, and will con-
tinue until the end. The laws against
murder and highway robbery lie dor
mant until some one chooses to violate
their provisions. Yet, are they not
vital and forceful all the time? Does
the murderer or robber bring the law
into existence under which he is pun
ished? The idea that any provision
of this law is dependent for its exist
ence or force or effect upon anything