The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-07-26
Tuesday July 70, 1904.
THE WATTS LAW.


liquor question in our city for two years
side TO this present contest would care
TO enter upon another such campaign
as we are now experiencing. We do
hope and pray that the matter will be
allowed to rest as the majority OF the
voters shall decide on Wednesday.
While this campaign has been free to
a large extent from the bitterness and
personal abuse and denunciation that
generally characterize u contests,
still there has been a good deal of strife
and unfriendIy feeling stirred up among
our people.
While The Messenger a congratu-
late the people of Wilmington that it
has not been worse, it deplores the fact
that it is as bad as it is.
Because we do not wish to see any
more of this turmoil and strife among
our people We say we hope that the
election On Wednesday will settle the
question of the sale of liquor in gu
city for two years at least.
But will it do that? Has it not al
ready been decided by the ~anti-saloon
people to petition for another election
under the Watts law at an early date
of the approaching election shall result
in the defeat Of the dispensary PROPOSE
ton? We have reason to believe that
some of the dispensary advocates are
contemplating such a course. basing
their determination upon a construction
of the seventh section of that law which
reads as follows:
That it shall be the duty of the
governing body of any city or town
upon the petition of one-third of the
registered voters therein who were reg
istered for the preceding municipal
election, to order an election to be held
after thirty days notice, in any year
in which the petition may be filed ex-
cept within ninety days of any city,
county or general election, in time for
the notice to be given as above requir-
ed: a. Whether intoxicating, liquors
shall be manufactured in said city or
town. ca Whether barrooms or saloons
shall be established in said city or
town. CD Whether dispensaries shall
be established in said city or town.
And any such election may be ordered
to determine any one or two or all of
said questions as the petitioners may
designate in their petition; Provided,
that such election shall not be held
oftener than once in two years"
AS We understand the position o:
those who claim that this election on
the question OF establishing a dispen-
sary will not prevent the holding of
another election within two years on
any one of the other propositions set
out in the above quoted section of the
Watts law, it is that the proviso SIM
ply prohibits the holding of an election
oftener than once in two years on the
same proposition, but permits the three
questions to be taken up, one after an
other, and voted on at periods of less
than two years. interval.
This depends upon what construction
the courts will put upon the proviso in
the seventh section, which says that
such election shall not be held often
er than once in two years The general
Interpretation of that proviso has been
that the words such election" applies
to any election held under that law
and not to the particular question vot-
ed on. That is the most sensible con-
struction TO put upon it and is the one
that nine hundred and ~ninety-nine out
of every thousand laymen and most O.,
the lawyers would put upon it. The
legislators knew these elections would
such provision. The two year limit
was put in the law to prevent the FIRE.
quent occurrence of such strife as the
legislators knew thse elections would
bring about. We feel sure the courts.
If the question should be raised, would
decide that the words such election
apply to elections held under that law
three propositions embodied therein on
which the people are given the right to
ask for an election. The law gave
those people Of Wilmington who are
opposed to saloons an opportunity to
have the two questions OF d~ispensary
and prohibition submitted to the people
at one and the same time. They chose
to have only the one proposition sub
mitted, and We believe the courts will
say that they must stand by their
choice. 1t was never in contemplation
of the law makers that a city or town
should be subjected to the expense and
annoyanc of three separate elections
on a matter which could be passed upon
at one time.
We do not believe OH board of audit
and finance, were the board of alder
men to order such election (Which we
do not him they would do) woul APP
prove an appropriation of city funds
for holding such election.
We do not believe there is anything
in b contention of those who hold tina,