The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-10-05
rHJRD-PARTY DISHONESTY.

It is claimed by some of our third-party
Prohibition friends here that the Supreme
Court of the State has decided that '.local
option" is unconstitutional, and therefore the
Republican party is insincere in offering it
as a means of suprressing or controlling the
liquor traffic.
Please state whether such q decision has
been made, and, if so, on what grounds the
Republicans rely to make local option effective
as q repressive measure.
r. NJ. HoLLINGswoRTH.
TERRE HAUTE. Oct. 1.
A more unmitigated fraud was never at
tempted upon honest men than that which
seeks to assail the integrity of the Repub-
lican party and the intelligence of the
people, by constantly reiterating that To-
cal option is unconstitutional. In addition to
the uniform decisions of the courts in other
States, the decisions of the Indiana Supreme
Court should forever settle this question. In
1853 the Legislature of Indiana passed a local
option law. The new Constitution had just
taken effect. Then, as later, the Supreme
Court catered to the wishes of the liquor traf-
fc, and finding a plausible plea, declared the
law unconstitutional. A few years later they
applied the same construction to the free
school system and closed all graded schools
in the State. 1t was not long until they got new
light on the school question, and reversed that
decision, and with it forever abandoned the
theory on which the Maze decision was based;
SO that when the constitutionality of the
Baxter law, a purely local option law. was
in applying to it the principle
Of Interpretation which had restored the
public schools, and made voting by townships
on road and other interests entirely proper
and lawful. Attempts were made by the at
torneys for the saloons to apply the Maze de-
cision to the Baxter ~local-option law. The
court answered that the principle involved in
that law did not apply to this law; but, as If
anticipating the puerile caviling of the pres
emit assailants of local option, it went out of
the way to add, "That case was so different
from the act now IN question that it is not an
authority upon any point in this case. It is,
therefore, not necessary that we should over
rule it, thus plainly indicating that it would
overrule il if it were in the case. Then, that
there might be no more caviling on the ques-
ton, the court adds: "There are, however.
several cases where legislation similar to the
statute of 1853, which was in question in the
Maze case, has been held to be
constitutional and valid" Every intel
ligent l~awyer-nay, every intelligent
farmer, and mechanic, and preacher knows
that tie principle of Interpretation applied to
the local-option law of 1853, and later to the
public schools, would close all the graded
schools in the State, and derange every i'm
portant township aud municipal interest.
The court meant to repudiate the principle,
though, not being in the case, it could not
review and override il, when it went out of
the case to say that such legislation is now
held to be constitutional and valid. [See
Gresch VS.. The State. AZ Ind, 547, for a full
discussion Of this subject.
The insincerity, or ignorance, or malicious
ness of those who wish to thwart the public
will by this bugaboo cry of unconstitutional
Ity against what is manifest destiny in the
treatment of the liquor traffic, is seen in the
fact that they wholly ignore the anti-prohibi-
ton decision of 1855. two years later than
the Maze decision, which has never been re-
viewed or overruled; but, on the contrary,
Sweet VS.. City of Wabash; Al Ind, z,
in which it is held, as late as
1873, that il license is SO high
as TO be prohibitory. it is unconstitutional,
for prohibition, however attained, is uncon-
stitutional. 1t is the most arrant specimen
of political 'stop thief re know of-an at
tempt 20 divert the public from the facts in
the case, as pleaded by these identical men
for years. In 1881 they demanded an amend
ment Of the Constitution, because prohibition
under the present Constitution is impossible.
In 1882 they renewed their demand at the po-
litical conventions of that year, and again in
1884. In 1882 the Republicans promised to
submit the pending amendment to a vote of
the people, in compliance with this demand,
and in 1884 they proposed a constitutional
convention, where all questions of c~ons.itu-
tional change or amendment could be con-
sidered; but now, forsooth, prohibition is the
only thing constitutional. 1t is not surpris-
ing that q lawyer, even of repute should take
this ground, for lawyers have to learn to take
both sides, one at a time, of any question;
bat what shall we say of preachers who re-
peat this sophistryl Proper reverence for the
purity of the cloth leads to the belief that
they don't know any better. That is, they
deceive, having been deceived.
THE SENATE TARIFF ELL.