The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1904-12-10
Selling Of Liquor May Go On
Despite Local Option
Law.
DECISION EAvORS COCKTAILS
Dry Precinct OF the Fair Grounds at
Exposition May Be irrigated
by Ministrations Of White.
Aproned Lifesavers.

Salem, Dec. s,--Attorney General
Crawford In an opinion requested by
President Downing OF the state fair
board holds that the vote for prohi-
hibition In Chemawa precinct will not
AFFECT the right OF the board TO grant a
license to sell liquor during the time
OF the state fair. This is in line with
the opinions OF the law az expressed
by the Salem Journal.
The opinion In full is as follows:
Yours OF recent date stating that
prohibition carried In Chemawa pre-
cinct, Marion county, at the November
election. and that the state fair
grounds are located In said precinct,
and asking my opinion as to whether
by virtue of said election and the terms
OF the local option law, the power vest
ed In your board by act of the legisla-
ture OF this state, filed In the Office Of
the secretary OF state February /.
1901, session laws OF that year. page
3. TO license the sale OF liquor, malt
vlnous, or distilled. for not to exceed
80 days and only for the 80 days or
less period during which the fair is
held each year, is repealed or super
ceded.
"The first thing to determine Is the
effect TO be given to the local option
law, and am OF the opinion that I
should be given the same consideration
and have the same effect as though
enacted by the legislature. The fact
that II became law by direct vote Of
the people In pursuance Of initiative
petition. does not give the act the
Of a constitution, but the
amendment Of our constitution allow
Ing direct legislation by means Of in
ItIative petition is only another mode
Of enacting laws. and laws so created
must be In harmony with the consti-
tuition and are subject to the same
rules OF construction as acts passed by
the legislature.
"The local option law went into
effect June "a, 1904, upon proclama-
lion OF the governor. 1t was general
throughout the state, and the only
question is whether It repealed the
special act above referred to. There
IS no provision the latter act ex-
pressly repeating the former and 1t is
/ general rule Of statutory construc-
ion that later statute, general in
Is nature and terms, and not expressly
'epealing a prior special statute, will
not affect the special pro-
,isons OF the earlier statute, unless re-
zeal is expressly named or necessarily
implied from the language Of the later
tatute and the subject matter thereof.
"26 Am. and Eng Encye. Of Law, 2
3D., page 7SS; Endlich on the Inter-
,retation OF Statutes, section 2l6;
sutherland on Statutory Construction,
ectlon 157,
"The latter announcement that ut
$ a principle that general statute
Without negative words will not repeal
" implication from their repugnancy |
he provisions of former one which
5 special or local. unless there is some
hing in the general law or in the
curse of legislation upon its subject
natter that makes II manifest that the
legislature contemplated and intended
repeal.
"Dlllon on Municipal Corporations,
ectlon 81, is to the same effect, also
n Re Commissioners of Central Park,
0 N, Y, 4sS. The supreme court of
ur state has declared the same rule.
In the case of State VS., Sturgess,
0 Or. 5S. at page So, the court says
A general statute will not repeal
articular statute previously enacted
imply because It contains Inconsistent