Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1902-04-04

NdlieN Al the supiSshe court anu tue OF
finance anu CONVICTION VAS sustained
Ine same was True ln Wolfe V. CITY VI
Lansing, % Mich, page oI'. lhis Or
FINANCE CLASSIFIED ala persons who SCI
% the gIass beverages Ihat are usually
sold AZ the saloon as salOonkeepers an(
as such taNeu the business. IA this cas-,
our supreme court says. that a saloon
IS not necessarily or exclusively plac,
lOr seiIlng liquor. IL sustained the or
FINANCE upon the same reasoning as n
me former case, although the orainanc,
never hao any oDJect al Iact except Il
tax and license the liquor traffic.
On the otAer hanG, where the ordi-
nance sought TO license the sale OF a.
quOr al Was declared NOId by our supreme
court as coming within the prohibition
Oh the constitution, see cases OF Ieoplt
'. DeMar, Az Mich, \. as, also Nancist
v. MI. Peasant, AZ AIlch, page 362.
lac nrst ordinances referred 10 sought
20 90 inO4recuy what is could not uo
unecuy ana the court sustained them as
vaAo, ia tie latter cases where they
sought 10 90 directly what me city want
CO 10 40, they IaIleO. our court says IL
People y. NanBaalen, 40 Men, page 25Y,
abused. n.eanIns thereby useGl as a pre-
teAt what IS In plain violation OF the
constitution, the courts Ought not 10 IN
,erlere with the municipal uescretlon.
4 ASA Wnat IA the name ot common
SENSE were these ordinances, ii not pre-
text Tor eYaGlng the constitution? All
tuls IL important ana german 10 the
subject unuer discussion only 10 The eX-
tent tAat IL Shows tnat Dad case -
likely 10 lead 10 a DaG .aw. The bad
use MAS lie haEulcap imposed ~ The
constitution; the BAD Jaw, III my Judg
nent, the cases TO which 1 nave referred.
IL locaI option prevails April eth, next,
what IS tie matter o1 Trying this sys-
tenn over again 10 reach the evil which
VIII be LETT IN our midst?
By the approval OF the people Of the
amendment 10 the constitution wiping
out section Il. OF Article ~, OF the con-
stituuon, the action oil The United states
supreme court IN declaring the act OF
1910 prohibiting the transportation OF
liquors nom without 10 within the state
and the acts of the legislature OF 1915,
la repeating the IronIUltory nquor law
OF looo, anu It's amendments, We nae
Wlped nom our constitution and statu-
te books every law which The temper
ance people Oh these times had caused
10 Dc enacted upon thls subject. They
were .eIt 10 mourn ana reflect upon the
Wreck. Their common friend was TWEEN
- years OF 4aDOr without a result anC
twenty years OIL history without one re
deeunns page, unless IL De the credit
written vi an honest enort oil a plan
which actual experience haa shown 10
be an utter and miserable failure.
our supreme court sustained the tax
aL4on Jaw OF 1910 contrary TO the expec-
tat!Ons OF the legislature and the bar,
BY hoiding even TINS statute not 10 be a
license, but taA, aHd the cOAstltu-
tOnal cause, Section 81, OF Article ~.
Oeln. stricken Out Ia 1916 - the vote OIL
our people, We began - buua upon the
LAX law Ot 1910 our present general IL
quor law.
heIAeAnDer mere that TINS vas IeVeIs-
AZ Oh OIL pOucy. mere Was no IurIhel
-lotes. Oh the larl VI our prohibition
-t4eAos tAe! "ele resting anu sieeLILs
-! upon tne WrecA which tAey mac
JuACeG Ior tnemseiN IS nom lovv 10 1870.
A -.eIe as 40 one So mean - 10 20 them
-O4nase. But from tnenCeLortn IL " al
determined Dy The peop4e Oh Michigan
.Aat We WOUId cast our bread upon Qil-
e4eEl waters IA GeallLS with the liquor
-raI4Ic. From 1900 TO 1915 we mad no re-
teI from our distress except such al
orGeC Is, as 1 View IL, BY the judicial
-ec4sIon Of our courts.
lie nTst amendment to the tax law OF |
$50 " as Act 10 OF The session laws OIL |
o'si the next was act Z6a Oh the session
avs ot 1873, the next vas act lot OF the |
session laws OF 1851, me next as round |
~ pages I5S 10 10 oil the session laws OF |
500, the next was act ia oil the session |
u 1880, ana the next was act 3l5 OF the |
session laws VI 1851 rom 1919 10 1881 !
,ur prohibition lrlenus were in "inoc- |
uous u4squietuue, but new crop oil |
tgltatoIs ana impracIcables were COM |
~ upon the scene OF action. they were |
inWlllng 10 learn from the history Of the |
,ast ana were ANXIOUS 10 start the bat
4e anew. 80 We see tne evidences of |
ne.r handiWork again N the amend
ueuts vi loo. The rank, unreasonable |
eature crowded into this statute smack
& Of The Blue Laws and Oh the inqulsi- |
lon we're wiped cut by our Supreme |
-ourt IA the case OF People V. Miner, 6S |
'Ilcn., page 54S ana Tie 4aW sustained as |
% lls substance leaving IL practically |
5 "a 1850, but thIs aCt with the oDJectlOn-l
BAG .eal..Ees siiaVs co. Is our present GEN
raj liquor law and Known as act sl3 OF |
ne ses sion law Of 1857.
But not content with their record they |
- ss.ss <: Use 90 q sc "a " which X as IL
Ike manner defeated by our Supreme |
curt in Rode V. Phelps 50 Mich. page |
80 ana With as earlier brother OF 1854 |
OAsi Bned 10 the scrap heap.
al the same session OIL the legislature |
, hear Tor tie frst time OF what 4 call |
he second departure" in other words,
local option"
AZ tneIe - anything IN the world some
like a. is agitation He
wants 10 talk tor the purpose of talk
ng SO when driven TO the last ditch he
spouses local option. This is pro-
libitiOn In spots jan counties. lie wants
q legal form at least some place of God 5
green earth redeemed, that is. legally |
edeemed from the sale OF liquors; SO
.e advocates local option And the
legislature again showing the double
ideness OF a politician. ana willing to
ppease and satisfy all, passed the local
,ptlon law OF 1884 known as act l97 Of
MS session. or course it was not to be