The Indianapolis journal., 1890-06-16
oossrrruTroNAL1TY OF LOCAL OPTION.


For some years past. ever since the
local-option method of dealing with the
liquor traffic in this State has been
agitated, a persistent effort has been
made to convince the people that such
law would be in violation of the State
Constitution, and therefore invalid.
Leaders of the third-party prohibition
movement have been particularly active
In their efforts to create this impression.
Some of them, not being lawyers, have
contented themselveswithb boldly assert
ing that such law would be unconsti-
tutional, without attempting to prove it.
Others, claiming authority as lawyers,
have declared in speeches and in print
that the Constitution was plainly opposed
to local-option legislation, and that the
Supreme Court had so held. The object
was to produce the impression that no
local-option law could be enacted in this
State that would be sustained by the
courts, and consequently that prohi-
bition was the only feasible method of
dealing with the liquor traffic.
For many years past no good lawyer
has doubted the constitutional right of
the Legislature to enact local-option
laws. but the efforts of third-party lead
ers to create different impression have
been so persistent that it has been
thought advisable to settle them
and the question once for all.
This is effectually done by the
opinion of Hon. John M. Butler, of
this city, indorsed and supported by
number of prominent lawyers in differ
ent parts of the State. These opinions,
published in the Journal this morning,
dispose of the question completely, and
leave nothing more to be said in the
way of argument. That of Mr.. Butler
is framed with his usual ability, and his
conclusions are supported by an over
whelming array of authorities. The ar
gument of the anti-lOcal- option people
has rested entirely on two decisions of
the Supreme Court, rendered nearly forty
years ago. Mr.. Butler shows that these de-
cisions never were good law, that the cur
rent of decisions for at least twenty years
has been steadily against them, and that
both have been overruled by later de-
cisions in this and other States. He
shows further that the principle Of local
option has been recognized and embod-
led in many laws, the constitutionality
of which is unquestioned, and that the
doctrine asserted in the old cases relied
on by the anti-local-option people has
been ignored by the Legislature and
courts for more than score of years.
Finally, he quotes decisions from nine
teen different States showing that
the constitutiOnality of 10 cal-option
laws under provisions similar to those
of our Constitution has been repeatedly
affirmed by the Supreme Courts of those
States. Mr.. Buffers opinion and con-
clusions are fully indorsed by those of
the other lawyers referred to, all of
whom are well known in the profession,
and who represent both political parties.
These opinions will be accepted by all
fair-minded men as conclusive. They
really end discussion on the subject.
Hereafter no person who reads these
opinions, whether lawyer or not, will
| venture to assert that local-option
law would be unconstitutional in this
State without inviting the charge that
he is either dishonest or incapable of
understanding an argument.