The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1888-05-30

posed measurs should stand v,,on its own
merits. and that the Legisia1Are should %
posse q ~ design
| Ina People Va. Mahaney updi this subject as
follsws; i sThis object Is fully accomplished
Ss ass BUY by s that
| every end and means necessary TO the accom-
| plishment OF this general object should be pro-
vided by a separate act relating 60 tiaat alone
would not only DO senseless but would actu-
ally render legislation impossible.
Other cases where this clause has received
consideration by this court are the following
| kyerson Va. Utley. 10 Mich, 300; swartout VS.,
| Michigan Air Line Railroad Company, "a Mich,
y9s; Auditor General vs.. Monroe County, 10
People va. Hurlbut. "a Mich, "A. As stockie vs.
| Slllsbee, Al Mick, bi5; People vs. Bradley, ~
Mich., l6S; Thomas Va: Collins % Mich, "a ;
Galway 81 Mich, ass; Manufacturing Conn
| pany va. Wayne Circuit Judge, SO Mich, 56l (;
People vs.. Beadle, 30 Mich. -; Church vs.. De-
Having called attention TO the adjndicated
cases in this court respecting the constitutional
provisions above cited and the purpose IL was
intended TO subservo by being Incorporated in
the fundamental law. we now come to an exam
ination OF the statute under consideration.
When twas enacted there was general law Ia
force regulating the sale OF spirituous, malt
brewed, formentod, and yinous liquors. under
certain restrictions ana litigations, upon COM
plying with which, aud paying the taxes pre-
scribed by another general law, 1t was law
full for any person to engage in the manu-
| facture and sale OF such liquors IN any
county Of this State. These general laws were
not repealed by the passage OF the act IN ques-
| ton.
In reviewing these various sections il is APP
parent that the object of the act Is To prohibt
| the manufacture and sale OF liquor to ba used
as beverage. There is no attempt by the
| Legislature TO disguise this object In the body
OF the act In section / they say that the
electors who are in favor OF prohibiting the
manufacture and sale OF intoxicating liquors
for use as a Leverage shall vote against ana
4 .I.T -aA IN i'm a
| vote for the manufacture and sale OF such
| liquors. Sect on makes the object still more
plain by declaring IL unlawful to manufacture
or sell liquors in any county in which a ma
jority OF the votes cast upon the question OF
prohibiting the sale Il intoxicating liquors
was against the manufacture and sale, and
| the general laws taxing or regulating the
sale OF liquors a beverage in any county in
Manufacture and sale OF such liquors by ma
| jority VOTE. IL Is too plain Tor argument that
the object OF this act as TO prohibit the sale
| OF fermented vinous, spirituous. aud intoxicat-
| ing liquors a beverage In such counties as q
ma iority OF the electors should vote for prohi-
| bition. But to show still further the object the
| Legislature had in view in enacting this law,
| attention is called TO the fact that after the
passage OF the act. and before 1t took eject as
| law, another act was passed by the same Leg
| islature entitled, An act to provide for the
| taxation and regulation OF the business Of
manufacturing selling, keeping for sale, '
etc, spirituous and Intoxicating liquors, the
| shall not be operative, except as 20 drug
| gists in any county that shall have prohib-
| tied the manufacture and sale OF liquors, ETC.
| These statutes are in pari materia, and the
expression used I'm the latter act affords COM
| plete demonstration of the Legislative sense Of
| its own language in the former act and shows
conciusively that the tject the Legislature had
| in view when passing the law in question, as
| ind by the language used in the body OF
the act, was 70 permit counties. severally, to
adopt prohibition as regards dealing in intoxi-
eating LIQUORS as a beverage. Is this object
fairly expressed In title which reads: An act
| TO regulate the manufacture and sale OF malt
brewed or fermented. spirituous and vinous
liquors in the several counties of this State -
| This question might be very properly answered
| by contrasting the title adopted with one which
would fairly express the object OF the act, az
| for instance
IAN act to authorize the suspension in the
counties OF this State. severally. OF the general
| laws relative TO the taxation and regulation of
| the manufacture and sale OF vinous, malt
browed, fermented, spirituous and intoxicat-
several counties. aud to prohibit the manu-
facture, sale, giving away. or furnishing such
liquors in the counties 30 voting TO suspend the
general laws aforesaid"
Is there anything in the title OF this act to in
| dictate that the object of the law was to sus-
| pend the general laws of the state relating 70
the traffic in liquors. or TO authorize this 10 be
/ done by a vote OF the electors of the several
| counties? Or is thore anything in such title
1 TO indicate that the object OF the law was TO
give the option to the electors OF any county to
prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquors as
| a leverage? There certainly is not unless the
| expression ito regulate means the same when
applied TO a law as TO prohibit or TO suspend
This court held in the case OF The People vs..
Galway, 81 Mich, 2Sj, that the words regulate
and prohibit were not synonymous and that
under a title of an act to regulate the sale of
| spirituous, malt, brewed fermented and yinous
liquors, etc, the Legislature could not prohibit
| the sale of liquors as a beverage in a specihed
territory. That decision is decisive OF the ques-
| ton under consideration unless we were in
error in the conclusion reached in that case.
| IL 10 proper, therefore, to examine somewhat
that line OF authority by which that case is
| supported.
| 80 Iowa. 20, an ordinance was entitled "Regulat-
| ing the use and sale Of intoxicating liquors,
| the BODY of which was entirely prohibitory.
| The ordinance was enacted under a statute
which required the subject to be clearly ex-
pressed in it's title. The court said: The sub
| ject as found in tho body OF the ordinance is
! entirely prohibitory.. There is no pretenso Of
nance being a clear statement OF it's subject it
| is wholly inconsistent with IL and states a
wholly different subject, as different as regula-
| ton is from prohibition" And the court held
| the ordinance void
Miller VS.. Jones. 50 Ala, 50, was a case where
| a similar constitutional clause was under con-
| sideration. The title OF the act ito regu-
| late the sale, giving away or otherwise dispos-
/ ing OF spirituous, etc. and the Court, in hold
1 ing void the body Of the act prohibiting the
| sale etc, says Regulate and prohibit have
| different and distinct meanings, whether I'M
| derstood in tho ordinary and common significa-
| ton, or as defined by the courts in constituting
| statutes (; to regulate the sale
| of liquor implies ex vi termini that tue business
may be engaged In or carried ON, subject TO
| established rules or methods. Prohibition is to
4 prevent the business being engaged in car
/ rio on entirely partially. The two in
congruous. A title which expresses purpose
| TO regulate gives no indication OF purpose to
| absolutely prohibit
1 1t was hold in City OF Emporia Volmer
| II Kan, $50. that tho word RESTRAIN is not
4 Wit ri
| In Bronson vs. Oberin. Al OHIO st, 47s, the
| act was entitled. IAN act authorizing certain
Incorporated villages to regulate the sale of in
toxicatng liquors therein" The court held
| this act so entitled did not give authority to
| prohibit, and said: Considering the words OF
this act together with its title, we conclude that
the power conferred to 70 yulate I he sale OF
intoxicating liquors and provide against the
| evils resulting therefrom, but not TO prohibit.
| In Heise VS.. Town Council, Rich is. G. ;,
404, the court said: 1T cannot be denied that
| the Town Council may lawfully adopt any reg
| ulations and impose any restraints on the re-
| failing Of spirituous liquors which may be
| proper to prevent any nuisance inconveni
| ence. But the suppression OF trade is not a
| regulation. To be regulated the trade must
| subsist. The ordinance does not impose regu-
lations or restraints on the relator s trading
but prohibits it"
In Sweat VS. wabash, Al Ind, 7. the court ED
that under an authority conferred by statute TO
| regulate and license the sale of Intoxicating
LIQUORS, no authority was conferred to prohibit
the sale of such liquors.
So in Duckwell vs.. New Albany, 25 Ind. 2S3
the power to regulate ferries was held not e
include the power TO prohibit ferries. unless a
license ut an expense OF $500 was first obtained