The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-21

relates to a portion Of the people of the |
state, or to their property" Oreople |
.. Supervisors, 43 n. Y, lU.) Tested |
by the foregoing rules and definitions,
the "Wood Law" must be pronounced |
both local aud special law. And,
ii either the one or the other, it falls |
under the ban of the constitution. III
the legislature by al act had designal-
ed those counties and towns by name |
which have, as il is said, adopted by |
their votes "local option" it could not
be doubted that such all act would be |
both special and local. The fact that
the people by their votes, instead of the
legislature by an act, have designated |
those counties cannot alter the princi
pie or vary the result; for what the |
legislature cannot do directly il cannot
do indirectly. In such cases, "the con
stitutionalIty of all act is to be deer
mined oP its operation, and not BY the
form It may be made to assume y
Estate er rel. q. The Judges, II Ohio |
ST., ID But more restricted dehui- |
ton of a special statute may be adopt |
Ell and applied in this case, and still
the act IN question must be held spec
ial law. In State VS.. Hermann (7j Mo-,
340), after giving the correct definitions
OF special law, as above quoted, fol
lowing the ruling in State 4. Tollc Il
Mo, 645 states, ".hat u statute which
relates to persons or things as class is
general law, while statute which
relates to particular persons or things
of class is special.' Here the statue
being discussed relates not to dram
shop keepers AZ class-dram shop
keepers all over the state only 10 MOSe
pa1ticula, persons Of LhUt cinSS who
happen to reside in certain localities
affected by a majority vote, etc. | re-
peat, that had the legislature by Gntici-
patory legislation poiuted out those
counties where such IL vote has since
occurred, and by express enactment
done what it is claimed mas been done
by ina jOrity vote of the people, who
could doubt or who deny that such
law was anything more or less than Il
special or local idO? Admitting, then,
tor arguments sake, that the people
have rs much law-making power as
has the legislature, still it will hardly
be conlended that they have any n4pre,
or that they could by their vote do that
which the legislature could not, by eX
press legislative enactment.
2. But the act Is so repugnant to the
"DOwning Law" that it of necessity
sccomplishes the repeal of that law in
all those localities where the "Wood
Law" has been adopted, tor in those
places it is impossible to contend
that both statutes can stand together {:
one must give way, for they differ in
their methods of procedure and in their
penalties. Smith Com, S96, S97,
1898. S99; Sedgwick, Stat. I, Con5t.
Constr, 100, l0I, aud cases cited. 1t
will not admit Of a doubt that the
DowRing Ld,0' is q general iaw-one
, operating all over the state. This
, being the case, the "Wood Law in
, all those counties and localities where
adopted, accomplishes, if valid the
"payiidi repeal" of the "DOwning
Law'--lhus converting that law into a
} local or special law which will be OI
E fJrce only in those counties left un
touched by the operation OF the "Woot
Law Could the legislature, by al
act to that effect, provide for tho par.
: tal repeal of the "Downing Law il
. all those counties and localities-nan
ing them-where the "Wood Law
has been adopted2 Would not sucl
i an act be local and special, in the ligh
OF the authorities | have cited?
: this question be answered in the affirm
II alive, as All persuaded it must be
u then it stands TO reason that the people
u acting upon basis of Legislative
= authority, could do no more by ihci
u votes than the legislature could do b.
u law TO the same effect. Not only doe
'i the Wood Law" if valid, repeal III
'i "Do%ning Law" an toto, wherever TIA
e former Is operative, but il also accom-
Ic plishes the repeal OF the act respectful
J., druggists and pharmacists, is so far Il
a the latter act is Inconsistent with th
l. "Wood law" In such cases. the paI
h tial repugnancy accumplshes the pai
'e tial repeal. [Pott Dwarf, ll3, ID;
ls and cases cited: Van Rensselaer, v!
J. Snyder, 8 Barb 3OS. And the sam
n observations apply 10 the druggist
D and pharmacists' act az apply to In
s. 'Downing Law"
ss And it is equally clear that tn
r "Wood Law where operative, ais
10 accomplishes these results: 1t forbid
D. the manufacturer of liquor and III
al winc-grower from selling their ow
ie products on their own premises {:
re now, by the general law, they are pei
he mitted to do; and the general mel
~ chant and the wine and beer houS
8, keeper are also interdicted from selin.
Il r. r. S., Secs. 5459, $3.50, 5463.l If I'll
30 druggist should sell wine for aught bl
is sacramental purposes, or anything els
a than pure alcohol tor medicinal pun
Sc poses, however pressing the neccssit
>: or urgent the need, he would rcndt
3, himself criminally responsible. M,
8 more: il the farmer at his frugal boar
-, shou.d give his guest OF his child
IN glass of wine from his own vinegar.
III or cider from his own press, 4
al even u physician should adminsti
to his sick Or dying patient dlaugl
,, of wine, they, too, would becou
'd criminals. An act OF such searchilI
Dc aud sweeping provisions, which Thu
e. strikes down the hand of hospitality
~ and forbids the holy ministrations
al charity. which brands as criminal Il
al performance of Offices OF the mo
urgent human necessity, surely h
al mands at the hands of the courts Il
~ most jealous observation before il =,
e, ceives the stamp of legal validity.
" Counsel for respondents take no aili
NATIVE position on the point whetht
~ the act under consideration accomplish
=, es the partial repeal OF the "Downil
:! Law" Counsel, however. in anOthI
=" ~ case now pending in this court. con
out fatty and say: at is not repCt
, Of the dram-shOp law, as plaintiff
:. claim, but only provides for anoth,
mode OF obtaining the consent al It
people interested. The incOnslslcuci,
e and repuguancies between the two ne
20 are however. so palpable, that no roo
I" would seem to be left Tor diScus~ir!
The crucial test OF the matter is tuun
u. in the answer TO this question: It
man is arrested In "a county which il:
=" adopted the "Wood Law" for scIIin
J whisky, uHder Ohich tar would /
y be tried and u,lder t0hich latD punished
This question furnishes it's own cDl
elusive answer.
3. But it is wholly immaterial, :
+ far rs concerns the result, whether II
: Wood Law" operates as II p0lttu( ,,
pcH or u paTftdL SHSpeHSt0H III ti
"Downing Law" If II partial rrpea
u repeal iIited by the houn'i&rtrs (
u certain counties, cities or towns, the
10 the consequences already noted vi
= a. occur. Ii il he said that no repeal Ia
10 occurred, then it must be obvious tin
.! the "Wood Law during the time
: has force in any given locaiit
!" locality, during the time the torn'
law lies dormant, will operate aS
Il partial suspension u q geneEGt k0t0, l.
OF wit, the "Downing Law" Touchir
ty .hiG point, Judge Cooley observe
e.. " The legislature NAV suspend ii