The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-27
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Is Local option Constitutional?


To the Editor Of the indianapolis Journal
The article in the Journal of the 23d from
George w. Hunter seems to assume that the
question of permitting or prohibiting the retail
traffic of liquor must be decided by vote, as pro-
vided in the law of 1853. In the United States
people can express their opinion either by vote.
remonstrance or petition. Both modes have
been and are recognized by the highest authori-
ties in every department OF the governments.
The Supreme Court of Indiana has recognized
the petition in the decisions made concerning
removals of county seats, organizing new coun-
ties. changing county boundaries. purchasing
grounds for agricultural fairs. changing and
opening roads. Under the old Constitution, the
form of petition was required as early al 1918.
No person should sell liquor in less quantity than
a quart without license granted on certificate of
twelve respectable householders. Laws 1873 D.
296) In 1921 this was changed to require the
certificate to be signed by twelve respectable
Notwithstanding the advance of public SEN
tlment. In 1882 twenty four freeholders were re-
quired to sign the certificate Under acts of
1888, .. $50, license should not be granted
in town or township where majority
of the freeholders demonstrated. See case
Woods VS. Pratt, Blackford, 377, where Judge
Sullivan, delivering the opinion of the Supreme
Court says: "The law is that no license Ito re-
tail spirituous strong liquors. shall be granted
to any person residing within any town or town
ship where majority of the freeholders in such
town or township shall demonstrate against the
granting of the same. The object of the law is
to protect the public morals, and preserve the
peace and quiet of society. Being designed for
the public good, it should be SO construed as to
promote it. y The evil which the statute
puts in the power of a majority of the free
holders to remove can we'll be suppressed by
general remonstrance against all applications as
by remonstrance in each particular case"
Under the present Constitution the Supreme
Court has again and again held valid ets Of the
Legislature providing that the will or option of
the people should be manifested by petition. In
no case more positively than that in Grosch vs..
The State l42 Indiana Reports. p. SAT,
Maize vs. The State IA Indiana Reports,
p. 342 The language of the court is:
Under the law in question in the Maize case
IA Indiana), the voters in each township deter
mined the question whether any licenses should
be granted or not by vote once in each year.
When the vote was in favor or license any one
could obtain license by filing bond with
security, as required by the act. 1t thu vote
was against license. no one could obtain license
during the year. The question as to the quail
fcation or fitness of the applicant to be ntrasted
with license did not enter into consideration In
any view of the case. Under the present Bax-
teri law, however, the vote at the preceding
election is assumed as fixing the number of
the voters never vote at the same election, aad
number equal to majority of that number
must petition for the granting of each permit
Thus the qualifications and fitness OF each per-
son. as we'll as the wish of the petitioners for
the establishment of the business in their neigh
borhood are at once settled by the voice of those
most intimately concerned. If they do not
thus open the door to the traffic the
law provides that, SO far as that appli-
can't is concerned, it shall remain
closed. This is a species of self government
which by the law is placed in the hands of the
people to be exercised by majority of them &C
cording as they may judge to be for their best
interest"
The persons drafting the Baxter law were
aware that the judicial as well as the coordinate
branches of government recognized the petition
as of equal force with vote, and so placed it in
the law.
The Supreme Court said the law vas con-
stitutonal, and that is the status in Indiana of
bar was always against the Maize decision.
Governor Hendricks himself said that law
uniform in its operations under similar condi-
tions. in every part of the State, was in harmony
with the Constitution. and he signed the Baxter
law believing it in accord with the supreme law
of the State. So said the Supreme Court in
AZ Indiana, and that is the law. to day,
without the formal overruling Of the Maize
decision. The principle enunciated in the
Maize case has never, it is believed, been so
applied to any other subject of legislation except
the liquor traffic On the contrary, the Supreme
Court has held valid subscriptions made for
railroad subsidies by townships, counties etc,
that were so ordered by vote of the people. So
1t seems that the subject matter controlled in
the Maize case rather than the principle of local
option. JN0 w. RAY.