Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1906-12-31

y
= ous harship upon the beer and
.ring interests but did not think
!, the liquor association should
..ou any trouble on the brewers
.,ouut and did not propose to
4 m their battles for them.
when this information was COM
..,cated to the officials of the
.,swers' association, 1t is said, they
we'd wroth over the situation and
,ter war between the two interests,
Ebied and still antagonistic. has all
Il, been actually declared. When
k.cretary F. A. Deckebach. OF the
I,owers association, was approached
nan the subject he admitted that
II had been informed of the attitude
|,sumed by the liquor dealers asso-
.Hon but declined to be interviewed
|, make a statement at this time.
Mr.. Hammond was in Salem Sat
|,day afternoon and departed for
|brtland, there to take the Steamer
Eburn for his home in Coquille, this
|reping. This condition of affairs
Its an entirely new phase upon the
'ttitude of the liquor interests as re-
lied to the local option law and
Dme interesting developments are
ntIcipated between now and the time
or the legislature to convene. II Is
that the beer interests
ave taken courage over this unex-
scted turn of events and believe
hat the ultimate showing made by
he whisky interests, which is regard
d as a direct confirmation of their
intentions that the local option law
tll increase the traffic In the more
rdent liquors, which II is sought to
egulate, will assist them In their en-
eayors to secure. an amendment TO
le act for a discrimination in favor
beer, represented as food prod
ct containing less than 3 per cent
cohol, as against the more ardent
Quors.
The fight between the liquor inter-
us and the beer interests Is expected
raise TO a white heat during the
ssion of the legislature, when IL Is
slieved the latter will make a siren
BUS effort to secure the adoption OF
! amendment 10 the act In their Ia
", aud the former will be on hand
full force TO prevent this action II
ey can. In explanation OF the
'ints at issue in the case pending,
er which this unique condition OF
fairs arose. Mr.. Hammond said:
This case. which is the second one
have arisen out of the conditions
CoQuille, is under the title OF
lker, contestant and appellant, VS..
e State OF Oregon, respondent.
lille II attacks the constitutional
of the act II differs from the first
st suit brought. and which was lost
the supreme court, entirely In that
e first suit attacked the validity OF
e election on the ground that all
the members of the county court
ere not present when the election
der was made. while this one at
eks the validity of ;he act directly
account of the inequality OF the
ection.
"When the election was held In |
DOS county this year the question of
cal option was so stated on the bal
I that that, Notwithstanding the en-
re county was voted wet the pre-
net of West Coauille went dry
I'd, as a result, the whole county |
as declared dry" The ballot con-
ined no question for voting upon
e precincts separately, but upon
Ie county as a whole, and we con-
nd that a law which authorizes
leh conditions is Unequal and con
airy TO the constitution, which pro-
des that all elections must be equal
Our contention of inequality Is
lsed upon the fact that portion oi
lest coquille precinct lies outsiue
ie city limits of Coquille proper
Id. since one portion of the pre-
net is in town and the other III
'arsely settled country it comes un
ar the constitutions election elassl-
'ation clause as improper.
Another point upon which we are
asing our contentious is that the
st amendment 10 the constitution
as given to all cities and towns eA-
Insive control OF the liquor tramc
ithin It's borders. and that any Town
nder this amendment. has the po"
? to abrogate the local option law
Thin its limits. Also thaI unu.l