The Penn's Grove record., 1888-08-04
Local Option Constitutional

Contrary to current rumor, and to
the surprise of at least one half Of the
people of this State, the court Errors
and Appeals at Trenton on Tuesday
declared the Local Option. High License
law, passed last winter, to be constitu-
tionai.
The High License part of the law
was approved OF unanimously 10y the
Court while the Local Option portion
was declared constitutional by a major
ity of 8 10 I. Those in the affirmative
were: Van Syckel, Depue, Beasly, Dix
on, Magee, Scudder, Clement and Pat
terson. Those against it we're Reed,
Knapp, Brown, Cole. Mctiregor, Whit
taker and ChacellOr McGill. AS this
decision npholds the law the local op.
ton elections ordered in Warren, Cum
berland, Salem, Cape May and Glouces-
ter Counties will now be held.
Justice Van Syckel read the decision
in which he says: Assuming that the
extreme effect of this legislation is to
forbid the sale by small measure, in my
judgement it must be regarded as a law
regulating the sale of intoxicating and
brewed liquors. 1t regulates the sale
by prohibiting it in small quantities.
Every license law is to some extent a
prohibitory law. 1t prohibits the sale
by all persons who have no license, but
it is said that the prohibition is absolute
within the sphere in which the law OPP
crates; that is, as to the sale by the
small measu So is the law which
absolutely folbids the sale by the small
measure on Sunday OF on election day
So would he a law which prohibited
the sale to minors OF within "A certain
distance from colleges. Such laws are
therefore none the less regulations of
the liquor traffic, they operate d check
upon the sale, not an absolute inhibition
and are the strictest sense regulations.
"Unless this view is accepted we can
not stop short OF maintaining that very
law which prohibits any portion of the
traffic is a prohibtOry law. In discuss
ing the local option branch of the law
the Court thought it pertinent to re-
mark that there was nc express prOviS-
ion in the Constitution that legislative
power should not be delegated. This
part of the case cal safely be rested up
on either of two grounds-tirst, the
sale of intoxicating liquor has from the
earliest history of the State been dealt
with by legislation in an exceptional
way. 1t is a subject by itself, to the
treatment of which all the aualogies of
the law appropriate to other topics can
not be applied. 1t is of Importance to
observe that the statement that the
vote authorized by this law if against
the sale prohibits the sale OF that it
makes this law in effect prohibitOry of
the sale by small measure is in accurate
and erroneous. IF the vote is in favor
of the sale that does not authorize the
sale, and no more does the adverse vote
prohibit it. The refusal to license does
not prohibit the sale by any one, its on.
ly effect is that by such refusal no one
is enabled to sell in contraventiun of
the law which prohibits all. If license
he granted to some still all not having
such license are within the introduction.
The prohibition therefore is not Deepen
dent On the vote; it arises out of the
law and not out Of the vote. The
question weather the license shall b.
granted is all that is involved in the
vote and hat the question has always
been committed to the judgement of
the tribunal selected by the Legislature.