Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1904-12-08

n
Downing Of the state fair board hold
that the vote for prohibition in Che
mawa precinct win not affect the right
Of the board to grant license to sci
liquor during the time of the stat,
fair. This Is in line with the opinions
of the law as express by The Journal
The opinion in full is as follows:
"Yours Of recent date stating that
prohibition carried in Chemawa pre-
ciuct, 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 yonr board by act of the legisla-
ture Of this state, fled in the office Of
the secretary of state February J.,
1901, session laws of that year, page
9, TO license the sale of liquor, malt,
vinous, or distilled, for not to exceed
thirty. days and only for the thirty
days or less period during which the
fair is held each year, is repealed or
mperceded.
''The first thing to determine is the
effect TO be given TO the local option
law, and am of the opinion that it
should be given the same consideration
and have the same effect as though
enacted by the legislature. The fact
that IL became law by direct vote of
the people in pursuance of initiative
petition, does not give the act the
standing Of 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.
f'The' local option law went into
effect June "a, 1904, upon proclama
tion Of the Governor. 1t was general
throughout. the state, and the only
question is whether II repealed the
special act above referred to. There
is no provision in the latter act ex-
pressly repeating the former, and IL is
general rule of statutory construc-
tion that later statute, general in
its nature and terms, and not expressly
repeating prior special statute, will
ordinarily not affect the special pro.
visions of the earlier statute, unless re.
peal is expressly named or necessarily
implied from the language of the later
statute and the subject matter thereof,
"2e Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, 2I
Ed, page 7S9; Endlich on the Inter
probation of Statutes, section 2l6;
Sutherland on Statutory Construction,
section 1877.
"The latter announcement that cit
is a principle that general statute
without negative words will not repeal
by implication from their repugnaney
the provisions Of former one which
10 special or local, unless there is some
thing in the general law or in the |
course Of legislation upon its subject !
matter that makes II manifest that the
Legislature contemplated and intended
repeal.
"Dillon on Municipal Corporations,
section 54, is TO the same effect, also
In Re Commissioners of Central Park,
80 n, y, 49s. The supreme court OF
our state has declared the same rule.
In the ease of State v. Sturgess,
10 Or. 6s, at page 90, the court says; /
"A general statute win not repeal
particular statute previously enacted !
simply because il contains inconsistent J,
provisions.' In Re All Hoy, the court,
by Bean, Justice, says: General leg.
ialatiOn on a particular subject must
give way to special legislation on the
same subject.
SIN the matter under consideration
the facts are that in pursuance Of law,
the state Of Oregon holds annually
an agricultural fair. The state owns
the grounds upon which the fair is
held, and the legislature has provided
by law for commission to superin-
tend the holding of the fair aud have
charge, care aud custody Of the prop.
erty Of tho state connected Herewith,
and by the law Of 1901, above referred
60, for the purpose Of deriving reve.
nue. for defTaying in part the expenses
Of said fair, authorised the said board
II commissioners to issue license per.
hitting any business 20 be conducted
upon said fair grounds during the hold
ing OF the fair, including the sale OF