The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-15
LOCAL OPTION IN GEORGIA.
Hon. Il. G. Hewitt on the Status Of Litigation
Over the Local-Option Fight,
Cincinnati Enqnirers

dOD IL. VI. h6Wltt, whose services were en-
listed by the lawyers employed on behalf OF the
liquor men in the Atlanta lGa.) prohibition liti-
cation. was interrogated by an Enquirer reporter
yesterday for information touching that exciting
contest. Mr.. Hewitt has probably a more in
innate knowledge of temperance legislation.
agitation and litigation in Ohio than almost any
other man IN the State, and therefore the IN
curry was made: What will the present Cen
eral Assembly of Ohio do with reference to the
liquor traiiet"
II am credibly informed said he, "that
bill has been prepared similar in its features to
the Scott law, with the lien clause omitted, pro-
viding for a tax of $500, and also making pro-
vision for local option those counties where 1t
is desired and the majority of qualified electors
80 vote 1t is going to meet with good deal OF
opposition from the Senate. The House, being
largely Republican, is, of course, committed to
the passage of such law. The feeling is grow
ing daily for some such measure and it will be
very hard to stay that current It is impossible
ment under the present General Assembly. The
only thing that the liquor interest has to fear
10 the local option feature. They are perfectly
willing to pay a reasonable tax, but are not will
ing to have prohibition anywhere. They would
prefer license amendment to the Constitution,
SO that the traffic might be legalized and made
respectable, and would be perfectly willing then
10 pay a license tax If they can't get that they
will do the next best thing
what is the status of the Atlanta local OPP
tion ight2"
I'm Georgia, as elsewhere local option, which
is prohibition in spots is advocated very strong
ly, and is creeping day after day more strongly
into the hearts of the people, as illustrated re-
Gently by the action taken on the vote OF the
people of the county in which Atlanta is situated.
Atlanta. as you know, is the Chicago of the
South, having population now of over $4,000.
Prohibition, or as it is called local option pre-
walls In over half the counties in the State OF
Georgia. The feeling in favor of it there is more
on account of the negro element. which drinks
poor. cheap whisky that makes them wild. Beer
and wine are seldom drunk in Georgia The feel
ing was so bitter in Atlanta during the fight that
even ladies forgot their position, and went out
and eleetioneered for the .Drys.' as the Prohibi-
ton party was called. The result of the vote in
the county was: For the Drys.' 3, 1928. and for
the Vets 1905. giving majority Of 228 for
local option. Julius L. Brown son of Senator
Brown, was one of the leading counsel and
strongest advocates of the 'Wets and arrayed
against him was Ex-Governor Colquitt.
1.-THE law under which this was submitted
took effect Sept Is, 1885, Il provided that upon
the application by petition by onetenth of the
qualified voters in any county of the State. the
ordinary who is in the nature of judge, shall
order an election to be held at the places where
the election for members of the General Assem-
bly, are held-and it is to take place within forty
days after the reception of such petition-to
determine whether or not spirituous liquors
shall be sold within the limits of such designated
place. After the election takes place it is the
Ou6y OF the Ordinary Wltnn twenty, Gays TO
declare the result, but if the electors are not
satisfied they can petition the Superior Court
for contest to impeach the fairness of the cleo
ton, but that does not suspend the action of the
ordinary nor does it supersede the original find
ing at all. Should the court to which the ap-
peal is taken find that the election was fraudu-
lent they can declare what the result should
have BEEN"
.Are the bars closed now?"
mo, very few, if any, have closed up to the
arff lrca hoea "a lay Ov thor
til the expiration of their licenses, most of which
have six months longer to run.
Section of the law provides that if major
ity of the votes cast against the sale. it shall
be unlawful, directly or indirectly, TO introduce
or trade in or furnish any intoxicating drinks
within the county.
Section provides an exception. that nothing
in the act shall be construed to prevent the man.
ufacture sale and of domestic wines or
cider. or the sale of wines for sacramental pur-
poses.
There is another provision of the General
Statutes Of Georgia which provides as follows:
1t shall not be unlawful for any person who
shall manufacture. or cause to be manufactured,
in this State, any vine the product of any vine
yard in this State belonging to such person. and
to SELL or offer to sell, in this State, such wines
at wholesale or retail in quantities less than
quart
Before the ordinary had time to declare the
result of the election, Julius Brown and other
attorneys. representing the Atlanta Brewing
Company and other persons engaged in the sale
of foreign wines and liquors, brought suit in the
United States Circuit Court of Georgia
against William LowndeF Calhoun, as
ordinary to restrain him from abstracting
the returns. and declaringsthe result of the cleo
ton. They claimed. among other things. that
great loss would result to investments made un-
der subsisting laws, and which would be abso-
lutey destroyed and of no value at ali if this
law went into operation, and that they would be
deprived of their property without due process
of law; that the law impeded interstate COM
MERGE in foreign wines by making it criminal
offense if made or manufactured outside of
Georgia. and encouraged and promoted the rails
ing and manufacture of light wines in Georgia
by taking off the license tax; that the business Of
men who are not engaged in selling wines
raised in Georgia but who are engaged In sell
ing wines from other States of the Union, and
the good will of their business would be irrepar-
ably lost; that the law was repugnant
to the Constitution Of the United States,
have power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the several
States; that it was also repugnant to those pro
visions of the Constitution securing to all citi
zens of the United States privileges and i'm
munities in the several States. and. further.
that it was repugnant to the Constitutions of
Georgia and of the United States because it i'm
paired the obligation of the contract embraced
IN the city charter, and because the Constitu
tion declares that private property shall not be
taken for public purposes without just and ade-
suate compensation be first paid; and, lastly,
that the registration law under which the cleo
ton was held was unconstitutional because the
registration books closed ten days before the
election. whereby large number of people who
were unable to register were deprived of their
votes.
1.-THE United States Circuit Court Judge re-
fused TO hold the restraining order and counsel
for the petitioners reserved their exceptions and
are taking the matter up to the Supreme Court
of the United States.
"In the meantime the feeling is very bitter
upon both sides. There is no telling where the
matter will end. The briefs of counsel in the
Ohio liquor cases are in demand with the Atlanta
lawyers One of the strongest legal objections
there is against the act as passed is the discrm-
nation in favor of authorizing the sale of domes-
tic wines of Georgia, while at the same time
shifting out the product Of other States The