The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-21

mode of expression was changed. from a vote at
the April election to petition in writing
Where the vote was ''for license under act Of
1853 it was granted. Where the applicant
backed his request by the petition OF q majority
of legal voters in the ward, etc., under act OF
1873 license was granted. WIsEe the opposite
occurred under either law license was withheld
The Supreme Court unanimously held the Bax-
ter law constitutional, Hon. A. G.. Downey, q
Democrat, delivering the opinion. 1t will be
found to be an excellent argument for present
use, and can be found in every lawyers Office
and courthouse in Indiana. The court says:
THE case of Maize vs. The State IA Ind, 342) is
cited as an authority in support of all the OBJ
jections urged against this law. We do not so
regard it. In our opinion the act the constitu-
tionality of which was in question in that case
that that case is not an authority upon any point
in this case Therefore, while we need not ap-
prove the decision in that case it is not necessary
that we should overrule it in deciding this case.
1t may be remarked, however, that there are
several cases, and among them Clark VS.. The
City of Rochester ga Barb, 446 and % n. Y,
605), the case in the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vana Chicago Legal News, vol 5. p. 372,)
Bancroft vs. Demas (21 Vt, 456). and the more
recent case of The State ex rel. Sanford va.
The Morris Common Pleas. in the Supreme
Court of New jersey IL Am Law Reg, 32),
where legislation similar to the statute of 1858,
which was in question in the Maize case, has
been held to be constitutional and valid. Under
the law in question in the Maize case, the voters
In each township determined the question
whether any licenses should be granted or aot,
by vote once in each year. When the vote was
in favor of license, any one could Obtain
license by filing bond with security as re-
quired by the act. If the vote was against IL
cense, no one could obtain license during the
year The question as to the qualifications or
fitness of the applicant to be intrusted with a
license did not enter into consideration in any
view of the case. Under the present Law, how
ever the vote at the preceding election 10 as
snmed as fixing the number of voters. without
any reference to the fact that all the voters
never vote at the same election. and number
equal to majority of that number must petit
ton for the granting of each permit Thus the
qualifications and fitness of each person, as well
as the wish of the petitioners for the establish
ment of the business in their neigh borhood, are
at once settled by the voice of those most init
mately concerned. If they do not thus open the
door to the traffic, the law provides that SO far
as that applicant is concerned, it shall remain
-Gcsed. This is species of self government
which, by the law, is placed IN the hands of the
people to be exercised by majority of them ac-
cording as they may judge to be for their best
interest"
1t will be seen from the above that the court
did not regard the act as conferring on the peo-
pie legislative authority, which was the first OBJ
lection to the law.
The second objection was that it vested admin
istrative power in the people. With equal force
of reasoning this was set aside.
The last objection was that the law was local.
and not general in its operation. On this point
the court wisely ruled: eve think the act is
general IL is in force and operation in all parts
of the State. 1t is only in qualified sense that
any law can be said to be of uniform operation
throughout the State. A law for the punish
mont of crime, the provisions of which are alike
applicable to all parts OF the State must neces-
sarily lack uniformity in one sense in its opera
ton. not only as to persons but also to local
tiles 1t operates in those places where it's pro
visions are violated and upon those persons who
transgress them Under the same circumstance
and conditions its operation is uniform. The
law which affords civil remedies is uniform in
its provisions, and under like circumstances. is
uniform in its operation throughout the State"
The court concludes: sin our opinion the law
is not justly liable 20 any Of the objections urged
against It,"
These extended extracts from the opinion are
made to show that every objection to the Baxter
law involving the principle of local option
was set for naught and the principle sus-
tanned. And when it is remembered that
the objections were presented to court
consisting of one Republican, Andrew l..
Osborn. and four Democrats, A. G.. Downey,
James L. Wordan, Samuel H. Buskirk and John
Petit, by Joseph E. Mcdonald, John NJ Butler,
Oscar B. Hord and Abram w. Hendricks for
Grosch. and resisted by Jonathan w. Gordon,
Albert G.. Porter and James G. Denny for the
State, we may be sure the right of the people to
or not now rests on solid ground, not only as a
right, but right declared and sustained by the
highest judicial tribunal of Indiana.
No other decision of the Supreme Court has
been made contrary to this last one of Groesch
vs.. The State, aud that shows the legal status of
local option in Indiana at this time.
JOHN W. RAY.