St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-02-21
The Dakota Local Option Law May Not
Hold Good.
WAS IT PROPERLY PASSED?
Legislation Hurried Through Which
May all Have to Be Done
Over Again.
Special to the Globe.


ments, which, if not convincing to the
supreme court, were at least fascinating
to the audience. The first was
the Sioux Falls case against the county
commissioners, or the case raising the
point as to what, under the law, cOnsti-
tutes ''one-third OF the legal voters as
shown by the last preceding election"
The petition presented to the
county commissioners of Minnehaha
county contained one-third of the
number of legal voters, but did not con-
tam one-thlrd of the names Oh the poll
lists of the last general election In that
county. The election was called, and
Prohibition won. The liquor men claim
that the election was illegal, as the
petition does not contain the required
one-thlrd OF the names on the poll lists
OF the last general election. and
THE PROHIBITIONISTS
maintain the Identical names are not re-
quired. The case for the liquor dealers
was ably argued by c. III. Winsor, of
Sioux Falls, and the actionOf the county
commissioners in calling the election
was ably defended by HI. III. Keith, while
all the liquor cases were represented
and argued by able counsel. The mag
net which attracted the greatest bulk of
brilliancy and rhetoric was the case of
Grand Forks, who was brought be-
fore the court on writ of
habeas corpus. McMatron was
arrested for selling liquor after the
adoption of the local option law in
Grand Forks county, and this is the case
upon which the law is put to general
test. The first to speak against the
validity of the local option law
was Cy Wellington, the famous
Iowa pleader. He said the
question presented was whether
or not, the law was valid or unconstitu-
tional, if indeed it had ever properly
passed the legislature. He laid great
stress upon the fact that the case was
not before the appellate tribunal of a
state, but before a tribunal of the terri
tory. He said there was
A MAST DIFFERENCE
between trying this case in territory
and trying it in a state. In state all
the pewer not specifically taken away
by the constitution of the United States
resides in the state, while in the terri
tory the legislature has only those pow
ers specially delegated to it by
the organic act. If the power to pro-
hibit the sale of liquor has not been
delegated to the Legislature. then the
legislature cannot delegate that power
to county commissioners through
local option bill. NJ. w. Greene,
of Fargo, also argued for
the liquor men, and was followed by
Hon. W. E. Dodge, member of the last
council. who argued that the local OPP
ton bill was never properly passed by
the legislature. Mr.. Dodge gave the
history nf tho hill fniIo,uc.
A local option bill was intro
duced and numbered As. 1t was
referred to the committee of temper
ance, which reported it back with the
recommendation that it do not pass. A
substitute bill was then introduced and
given the same number. After amend
ments were proposed it was referred to
the committee Oh temperance. 1t was
REPORTED BACK
to the house with amendments. and the
recommendation that it pass as
amended. The rule of the house pro-
vided that before the third reading and
final passage of bill it should be en-
crossed, with all of its amendments.
The moment the report of the committee
was received and adopted a motion
was made that the bill With its amend
ments be printed. This motion pre-
vailed, bnt without a reconsideration of
this motion that the rules be suspended
and the bill be put upon its
final passage was carried. This
was done without engrOssing
or making the amendments a part Of
the bill. 1t went to the council and it
was not at first discovered that the bill
as amended had not passed the house.
The council committee made the dis
cOvery that they had the bare bill with
out the amendments, and the chairman
Of the committee, Mr.. McCumber, who
had previously recommended its pas
sage, withdrew the recommendation
Mr.. Washabaugh then moved that the
bill go back to the house for consider
alton with reference to its engresSment.
The council record shows that it was
reported back to the house.
THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE
also shows that On the very next day the
chief clerk of the house reported it back
to the council with the usual statement
that it had been passed by the house,
but the house record shows
that not single act was
taken by the house with reference to
the bill. The bill could not be en-
crossed without an order of the house
and could not be read or passed without
engrossment, and it is shown by the
record that no such action was
taken. and hence that no such bill
by the house. Attorney General Tenn
pleton followed in support of the val
idity of the law, quoting numerous au-
thorities. Judge Pratt, of Grand
Forks, took issue with Senator
Dodge as to the right of the court
to examine the journals to discover
whether or not the local option law had
been properly passed. He also took is
sue (haying got into the record
with the statement that the
journals showed that the law
had been enacted. The judge
was terse and vigorous, and the argu-
ments in the case were closed by Mr..
Selby, of Grand Forks. who touched
upon the revenue question introduced
by MI. Wellington, and ably defended
the law.
THE THIRD LIQUOR CASE
argued, and one which brought out
some fine points, was that of the terri
tory against Burton .E. Champion, of
Sioux oFalls, Champion having been
enjoined from selling liquor
G.. H. Winsor attacked the
law very forcibly. He said
the only question was whether or not
chapter 70 applied to the city of Sioux
Falls, which was acting under special
charter giving the exclusive right to
license the sale of liquor within its
borders. H. IL. Keith, of Sioux Falls,
replied to Mr.. Winsor denying about
all that Mr.. WinsOr had claimed. Mr..
Keith argued at length that special
tax is repealed by Il general act when
that appears TO be the intention
of the legislature. The judges held a
consultation on this case tonight and at
midnight arrived at q conclusion,
which will be promulgated in
open court tomorrow morning at
$50. From the prOmptness with
which the decision was arrived at and
the questions prOpounded by the Judges
during the arguments. Representatives
of the liquor men feel confident that the