The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-01-16
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF 1T.
City Attorney Adams on the Won
Claim Decis ion.

City Attorney Adams on the Won
claim Decision.
Judgments were taken yesterday 10 the
superior court by City Attorney Adams in
the certiorari cases of James Mcbride and
8. Marks from the mayors court, dismissing
the c6ses and placing the costs upon the
plaintiffs.
Mr. Adams differs with Mr. DIV 3ignon in
his opinion Of the decision Of the supreme
court in the Won Claim case and It's bearing
upon the city's position, as expressed IN
yesterdays MORNING NEWS. 1.-THE state
ment in to-day's MORNING NEWS concern-
ing the Won Claim aad Mcbride cases. he
said. docs not do the city justice. One
might Infer that the supreme court took a
different view Of the law from that taken
by the mayor and the city council.
when the fact is that, In principle
and substance, the position of the city has
been fully sustained. When the Mcbride
case was tried before council, the question
was as TO the validity Of the section OF the
Sunday ordinance upon which the charge
had been based. Council was advised that
this section was valid even, although there
might not be any material difference be-
tween the offense provided for by the ordi-
nance and the state offense of keeping open
tippling house on the Sabbath day.
Ahc auNlCtg mGs AQdtlS SQlQ. was
based upon a portion of the charter OF the
city, which existed as law prior TO the
act OF 1857, and which in terms authorizes
the mayor and aldermen Of the city of Sa-
vannah to control and regulate barrooms in
the city Of Savannah my opinion being that
this ordinance was within the purview of
such statute and thas there was nothing
TO prevent the legislature giving this power
TO the city. The contention Of Mr. Nc
Brides attorney was that the city could not
punish for this offense and could not be
authorized so to punish. NV opinion
was, and is, that it is merely
question of legislative intent. In the
argument before the superior court, when
the act Of 1857 was cited and read, the at
torney representing Mr.. Mcbride urged that
the ordinance was nevertheless void that
the city could not be authorized to punish
for the offense. aud that any act which at
tempted 10 give this authority would be
void. In the Won Claim casa the supreme
court has expressly sustained such legisla-
ton. and has thus sustained the controlling
position taken by the city of Savannah ia
these cases.
ut ia true that the general power of the
city with reference to barrooms was not
before our supreme court in the Augusta
case, and could not be, but there Is nothing
to warrant the suggestion that the supreme
court would render another decision with
reference to the city of Savannah but for
the act of 1857. Under the principle in the
Won Claim case, they would be Obliged to
sustain the position of the city Of Savannah.
outside Of the act of 1857. if they thought
that the general power to control and regu-
late barrooms in the city of Savannah
would sustain an ordinance requiring
barrooms to be closed on the
Sabbath day. Unless such an ordinance
IS within the scope Of such power 1t would
be difficult to suggest any ordinance that
would be. The statement, therefore, In TO-
DAYS NEWS, that in all probability Mayor
McDonough's decision would have been re-
Versed by the superior and supreme courts
otherwise is certainly mob warranted by
the decision in the Won Claim case, but on
the contrary, the fair and reasonable infer
ence from that case is that the mayors DO
sltlon would have been sustained, even out
side of the act of 1857.
"As TO the effect Of a conviction before
the police court, l have only to say that the
authorities which sustain this municipal
legislation also sustain the proposition that
such conviction Is no bar to punishment
under the state law in state court It is
not case of conflicting concurrent juris-
dictions,' but it is a case of the violation of
the laws Of two different jurisdictions. The
city cannot punish twice for a violation OF
It's laws, and the state cannot punish twice
for violation Of the states laws
but the same act may involve a violation of
| the laws of the two different jurisdictions.
1hls position ID sustained by the supreme
court of the United States, by Cooley in
his work on Constitutional Limitations
aud by the best authorities. l infer from
the last head-note in the Won Claim case
that our supreme court has the same idea.
because 1t is noticed that the criminal act
with which he was charged was violation
OF the general law of the state as well as of
the city ordinance"