The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-11-20
SHOULD OskY rHE Law as 1T l.
WkIrrEN.

w IA I 0Ns
The duty Of the board of aldermen is to
obey the law as it is written and to
carry out the decree of the people as ex.
pressed at the ballot box.
The law plainly says that no person
shall be elected commissioner of the dis
pensary unless he shall have voted for its
establishment That qualification is set
forth in the act under which the dis
pensary is established. The board has
elected, at the behest of an alderman who
wants q paying job in the dispensary and
other politicians. a commissioner who did
not vote at all. 1t is true that Chief
Justice Walter L. Watson, otherwise
known as city attorney, Will advise the
board that it was unconstitutional to make
such requirement for eligibility to hold
the office of commissioner. The able law
yers in the Legislature, who passed upon
that provision. are as apt to be right
about it as the Chief Justice of Raleigh.
At any rate, until the question Is sub
mitted to the Supreme Court and settled,
it is the duty of the board of aldermen
to obey the law as it is now written, in
stead of following the ex parte decision
of Mr. Watson. He may be right; he
may be wrong. The question has not
been passed upon by the courts. Until 1t
is, the board should live UP to its plain
provision. presuming that it is constitu-
tional until a court of competent juris-
diction pronounces it unconstitutional.
There is q maxim in law that what a
man does through an agent he does him.
self. That ought to apply in the case of
ployes OF the dispensary. Under the law,
no man can serve as commissioner of the
dispensary (Watson, c. j., dissenting) un-
less he voted for its establishment. If
the Legislature thought it important to
thus hedge about the commissioners, how
much more important is it that the man
ager and assistants, who have the actual
management, should be in hearty sympa-
thy with the temperance element that
won the dispensary fight? Therefore, the
people have a right to claim that no man
shall be selected to a position in the dis
pensary unless he favored it. and is a
practical temperance man.
Again: In selecting the men to man.
age the dispensary no member of the board
of aldermen, however competent, should
be chosen. 1t is freely charged that the |
three commissioners elected are under such |
obligations to certain aldermen thu. they |
will vote for them to run the dispensary. |
If such deal should be consummated. il |
would disgrace the board Of aldermen and |
the board OF commissioners, and make both |
bodies stencil in the nostrils of the good |
people of Raleigh.
There IS another matter with reference
to the dispensary. There is a division OF |
opinion as to the number of dispensaries
that may be established under |
the law. Some lawyers hold that |
the act contemplates only one. |
formed. that there is no limit to the num-
Der. and that if the board should elect it |
could put twenty-three dispensaries in |
Raleigh to replace the twenty three |
saloons voted out. Mr.. Watson may be
right; he may be wrong. The matter
must be passed upon by tho Supreme
Court before the board will know which
is the true construction. In the doubt
about whether the board has the authority
to establish more than one dspensary,
why not resolve the doubt in favor of
what is admitted to be the desire OF tho
majority of the voters in the city? Dur
ing tho campaign, it was never suggested
that anybody wanted to establish two
dispensaries. The fight was on this issue:
IWenty-three bar-rooms or one dispcnsary?
By nearly two hundred majority the people
OF Raleigh declared for Quo dispensary
Are the board Of aldermen going to deny
majority rule to the city of Raleigh by
multiplying drinking places?
-
Is TO be hoped that at It's meeting
tonight the board of aldermen will undo
their unwise, and, in part illegal action
of their last meeting, and follow the law
as it IS written and give heed TO the
proper demands OF a majority of the
voters Of the city of Raleigh.