The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-01-28
.eeklg gatelligeuter
OFFICIAL CITY AND COUNTY PAPER.
T Continued from first page.l

lNO'ettitttCb IfU"t ,ItIoC p"NJC'J
power has been delegated In those in
stances, as [ have heretofore pointed
out.
The "Wood Law" has been compared
to the "Downing Law" and it is
claimed that IL the former is invalid, as
being q delegation of the legislative
power, 80 also Is the latter. | attach
no Importance to the method, in either
instance, whereby license Is to be
granted; this may we'll be done by the
votes OF the Taxpayers, or by their
signatures to a petition to the same ef-
feet. But, right here, this marked dis
tinction between the two acts super
venes. Ninety days after the adjourn
mont OF the Legislature, the "Downing
Law" its penalties and its punishments
were full fledged, and went into imme-
dlate and active operation In every
county in this state, against rny viola
tor OF that law. Not so with the
"Wood Law ;" it has neither prohibit
lions, penalties, nor punishments until
u majority of the voters do SO decide
And though the majority opinion de-
clares that the latter law went into ef-
feet ninety days after the adjournment
of the legislature. this assertion meets
with contradiction by the very face,
terms and conditions of the act itself.
Section Sc OF article Nv Of the consti.
tuition declares that emo law shall take
effect or 20 into force until ninety
days." &C., thus leaving 1t to the legis-
lature when, after that period, q given
law shall take effect. The only prohl-
bition 10 against the law taking effect
prior to the expiration OF ninety days.
This point 10 too clear for argument
In concluding my remarks under this
head, allow me to observe that on all
hands 1t 10 conceded that an act may be
passed which will be = delegation OF
legislative power. II the "Wood Law"
10 not faulty In this particular, permit
me to ask this test question: How
shall an act be formed, framed, on
fashioned IOhich shall be ritidted by u
a fault?
Pin relation to the additional au-
thorities cited in the majority opinion
In regard to what 10 q general law, and
what is O local or special law. it suffices
to say that they are in entire harmony
with State vs.. Tolle, IL Mo, 645, and
State vs. Herman, rs H., $40, All
%nouncing "thst a statute which relates
to persons or things as a class, is q gen.
eral law, while q statute which relates
to particular persons or things Of a
class, IL special" The "WOod Law"
clearly falls within the latter denomi.
nation IL singles out those ''particular
persons OF Q class" to- wit, those dram
shop keepers residing in certain local..
ties, and upon them it inflicts penalties
from which others In the same class are
exempt.
3-The majority opinion Industrious
~ avoids ruling the point whether the
"Wood Law" operates as a repeal OF
the "Downing Law" Counsel for
those who were respondents in the
lower court exhibit a similar reticence
on the same point.
And any ruling is also avoided as to
whether the druggist and pharmacist
law 10 repealed in counties where the
"Wood Law" is In vogue. AS | have
heretofore pointed ont, it is wholly
lmmaterial which horn of the dilemma
be taken. If it be ruled that the
"'W0sd Law" operates as a partial re-
peal OF a general law, to-wit. the
"Downing Law" and Of the druggist
and pharmacist law, &C.. then, by 30
doing, 1t indirectly enacts a special or
local law by the partial repeal of a
general law, and thus violates section
So OF article Nv of the constitution. If,
on the other hand, those general laws
are not partly repealed, but only suS-
pended, such suspension is equally in
valid, because not a general suspen-
sion. The intimation is however given
that u partial repeal OF the "Downing
Law ,"hss occurrId in certain localities.
IL so, then for the same reason a partial
repeal Of the druggist law in such To-
calities has also occurred. In order
that one law should repeal another, it
IL not necessary that the former should
do this in terms. 1t is sufficient that
the repugnancy between the two acts
10 such that both cannot co-exist. This
precise point was 20 ruled at the pres
emit delivery. Estate er rel as. Dolan. }
| have already cited authorities IN a
former part Of this opinion showing
that @ partial repugnancy accompanies
q partial repeal. This necessarily fol.
lows from the premise that a total
repugnancy accomplisnes q total repeal.
A-The majority opinion also declines
to decide whether section 9 of the
"WoOd Law" which denounces greater
punishments against selling liquor
without license than does the "Down-
ing Law" 10 constitutional. This point
10 directly in issue, and cannot be fairly
eyaded, nor put off 'tW a more con
venient season;' for if the "Wood
Law" IN certain localities, accomplish
90 the repeal OF the "l)owning Law"
Il does this in toto. In those localities
no shred or patch Of the "Downing
Law" is left In existence. This being
the case. one OF two things must needs
follow: Either that q viOlator OF the
"Wood Law'i must receive greater
punishment for selling liquor without
license than he would under the old
law, or else there is no punishment
provided for his otenSe! This bare
statement carries with 1t it's argu-
mept, and furnishes those whom it-may
concern something in the nature OF a
solid, upon which they may ruminate
at their leisure. Beside, it is incon-
ceiyable that the "Wood Law would
have been enacted without a penalty
attached as incident TO its violation.
The authorities / have previously cited
CONSEQUENTLY show that, when it j.
apparent that q law 10 enacted as an
entirety, as q system, then q rejection oil
a part Of the system rejects the whole
law. 30 that this state Of affairs brings
other dilemmas to confront the up.
holders of the validity OF the "Wood
Law" First-Either that section . o.
thai Ia is unconstitutional because Of
jnficting greater punishments than are
inflicted for like offenses in other local
tiles, thus denying 10 those upon whom
such punishments are inflicted, the
sexual protection of the laws" or else,
second, that, being thu u~nconstitu
tional, It is TO be stricken out OF the
wood Law" on that-.account, anC
thus leave no punishment whatever tt
be inflicted upon those who violate III
behests; or else, third, that section .
by reason Of being q poriionJof Il sys'
tenn which would not have been adopt
ed but as q whole, then that section
being invalid, the whole act must per
isb. III there is any loopbole of escap'
from one of these three alternatives,
am unable to perceive 1t.
81 have shown that, according t
the terms of the statute, it is to last
where adopted, for Jour years. NJ!
ss~sociates confess their inability SO
nuderstand the ground on which TIL
claim 10 based" To my mind it
yery plain that neither the legislator
nor the people, nor both combined, ca
enact law which will stand lou
Years: vet this Is just what the "Woo'
law" does. OF course, if a law Ca
he made to stand for four years, it ina