Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1888-05-31

in People w. Mahaney, upon this subject as
follows: This object is fully accomplished
| when the law has but one general object which
is fairly indicated by its title. To require that
| every end and means necessary to the accom-
piisnment Of this general object should be pro-
vided by separate act relating 20 that alone
| would not only be sensoless but would actu-
| ally render legislation impossible"
other cases where this cause has rec received ,,.,s
| kyerson vs.. Utley, is Mich, go; Swartout vs.
Mi, higan Air Line railroad Company, 81 Mich I,
Mich, 20. IS; Kurt vs. People. So Mich. as2 =;
| People vs. Hurlbut, "a Mich, A., as Stockle vs.
sillsbee, Al Mich, SIS; People va. Bradley, 80
Bisseil VS.. Duriee, So Mich, 2S7; People VS.,
| Gadway, 81 Mich, 2Sj; Manufacturing Conn
pany ys Wayne Circuit Judge, So Mich. ssl (;
People ys. Beadle, GU Mich, q; Church vs.. De-
Having called attention to the adjudlcated
cases in this court respecting the constitutional
provisions above cited, and the purposeit was
| intended to subserve by being Incorporated in
the fundamental law, we now come to an exam
ination OF the statute under consideration
When twas enacted there was a general law In
| force regulat ng the sale OF spirituous, malt
brewed, fermented, and vinous liquors, under
certain restrictions ana litigations, upon COM
plying with which, aud paying the taxes pre-
scrbed by another general law, 1t was law
full for any person TO engage in the manu-
county OF this State. These @ general % laws vs. were @
not repealed by the passage OF the act In ques-
| tion.
| IN reviewing these various 6octOnB IL ID hp-
parent that the object of the act is to prohibit
| the manufacture and sale OF liquor to be used
| as a 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 beverage shall vote against and
tho who arc opposed to prohibition shall
vote for the manufacture ana sale OF such
| liquors. Section makes the object still more
plain by declaring it unlawful to manufacture
| or sell liquors in any county in which ma
Iority OF the votes cast upon the question OF
| prohibiting the sale Il intoxicating liquors
WIS against the manufacture and sale, and
] because 1t Is prohibited. Section suspends
the general laws taxing regulat ng the
| sale OF liquors as a beverage in any county in
which the electors have voted to prohibit the
manufacture and sale OF such liquors by ma
| iority vote. 1t is too plain for argument that
the object OF this net was to prohibit the sale
OF fermented, vinous, spirituous, and intoxicat-
| ing LIQUORS as a beverage in such counties as
bit!on. But to, show still further the object the
| Legislature had in view in enactng this law,
attention is called to the fact that aiter the
| passage OF the act, and before it took effect 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
4 last section of which provides that the act
gists in any county that shall have prohib-
| tied the N manufacture and sale OF liquors, ETC.
| These statutes are in pari materia, and the
i EXPRESSION u
plete demonstration OF the Legislative sense Of
4 its own language in the former act and shows
conclusively that the object the Legislature had
| in view when passing the law in question, as
| ind by the language used in the body OF
/ the act, was to Permit counties, severally TO
adopt prohibition AS regards dealing IN intoxi-
eating liquors 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 yinous
liquors in the several counties OF this State y
| This question might be very properly answered
| by contrasting the title adopted with one whic n
would fairly express the object OF the act as
IAN act to authorize the suspension in the
counties OF this STATE. severally of the general
laws relative to the taxation and iesulatlon :, OF
| tho manufacture and sale OF yinous, malt,
| brewed, fermented, tprituous. and infoxicet-
ing liquors, by q vote OF tho electors OF the
several counties. and to prohibit the manu-
facture, sale, giving away, or furnishing such
liquors in the counties so voting to suspend the
generIl laws aforesaid.
dicato that the object OF the law was to sus
| pend the general laws of the state relating to
the traffic in liquors or to authorize thls 70 DI
| done by a vote OF the electors of the several
| counties2 Or is thCre anything in such tltle
| to indicate that the object Of the law was to
give the option to tho electors OF any county M tc
| prohibit the manufacture and sale OF liquors az
| a beverage? There certainly is not unless the
expression "to regulate" moans the same wher
applied TO a law as ito prohibit or TO suspend
This court held in the case OF The People VS.
| Galway, 81 Mich, 26J, that the words regulate
and prohibit were not synonomous and tina,
under a title OF an act to regulate the sale o
| spirituous, malt. brewed, formented ana Vinout
| liquors, etc the Legislature could not prohioil
| the sale OF liquors beverage In speciheo
| territory That decision is decisive OF the ques
tion under consideration unless we we're II
error in the conclusion reached in that case
| IL ia proper, the refore to examine somewhn
J that line OF authority by which that case II
supported. ,,-
| IN yg In w q N
| ing the use and sale OF intoxicating liquors
! the body of which was entirely prohi6itory
/ | Tha ordinance was enacted under a statute
which required the subject to be clearly OK
pressed in it's title. The court said; The sub
! ject as found in the body OF the ordinance
| entirely prohibitory. There is no pretenso o
| reyulati n Instead OF the title OF this ordt
nance being n clear statement of its subject 1
, is wholly inconsist mt with = and states
| wholly different subject, as different as regula
I tion is from prohibition" And the court hel'
the ordinance void.
a sim lar constitutional clause was under con
alteration The title OF the act was ito regu
late the sale, giving away or otherwise dispos
o. spT tsS sSOSs bodS q tbo act proh6tins tn
sale etc. says: Regulate and prohibit hav
r different and distinct meanings, whether un
derstood in the ordinary and common signihca
tion, or as defined by the courts in constituting
4 | statutea to regulate the sal
OF liquor implies ex vi termini that the busnes
: | may bo engaged IN or carried on, subject
established rules or methods. Prohibition is +
I prevent the bus ness being engaged in or car
re on entirely or partially. The two are IN
!, congruols. A title which expresses purpos
to regulate gives no indication OF a purpose I
7 | absolutely prohibit.
Il was ieId in city of EmporIa VS.. volmel
| IL Kan, $50. that Tho word restrain Is nc
9 autonomous with prohibit or suppress.
Q in Bronson VS.. Oberln, Al Ohio 81, 47B, TN
= acJ WA entitled, "An act authorizing certai
i, incorporated villages to regulate tho sale OF IN
o | toxicatng liquors therein The court hel
o this act so entitled did not give authority
o | prohibit and said: Considering the words
Il this act together with its title, we conclude tht
o the power conferred was to ro 5ulate the sale
L intoxicating liquors and provide against th
Il evils resulting therefrom, but not to prohtbit.
n In Hese VS.. Town Council, 8 Rich -. q.
l. 404 the court said: 1T cannot be denied tht
o the Town Council may lawfully adopt any rel
" ulations and impose any restraints on the n
10 failing OF spirituous liquors which may
proper TO prevent any nuisance or inconven
g ence; But the suppression OF trade Is not, not
o subsist. The ordinance does not impose reg
Is lations or restraints on the relator tradin
i but prohibits IT
that under an authority conferred by statute
Il regulate and license the sale OF intoxicatir
Ia liquors no authority was conferred to prohib
~ the sale OF such liquors.
- So In Duckweli VS.. New Albany, 25 Ind. %
la | the power TO regulate ferries" was held not
h include the power TO prohibit ferries, unless
D. license at an expense OF $500 was first obtains
a In state ys Mott, 61 Nd 2o7. the City
a. Baltimore was given power to regulate u
"A | places for manufacturing soap and candles nj
.b the erecting OF slaughter houses and distille
as les and where any other offensive trade is ca
o. ried on" The council passed an ordtnan
n. prohibiting the operation within the city
hns for burning oyster ,s shoIs ana S'OTI
unauthorized, and the court. spoakII
n OF the power 20 regulate, said: "Th
T. power assumes ,ne eAsesce Oh sucn ssans i.s