Evening journal., 1908-01-16

lneSe SUBJECTS afcs
'.First-The submission Of the vote
on the question of license.
Second-Penalizing the violations of
the provisions of Article XIII, Of tho |
constitution, If a majority in any dis |
trict votes to enforce such penalties:-
and fixing penalties for such violations
and process for enforcing same"
Mr.. Salisbury argued further that
the law is unconstitutional because Of |
its drastic and confiscatory provision
to close up breweries and saloons with
out compensation therefor. He con-
tended that there are breweries in
Wilmington representing millions Of
dollars, and operate under charters
granted by the State prior to the adop-
ton of the new constitution in 1891.
Continuing he urged that 'the charters
Of these companies are contracts be-
tween the companies and the State and
cannot be impaired. No contention is
made here that the State may not
regulate the retailing of Intoxicating
liquors as beverages bpt the conten-
tion IS made that K could not take or
destroy the property OF the brewing
companies. duly chartered. without
compensation, or refuse 10 allow them
to continue to the end OF their corpor-
ate lives the manufacture of the article
for which they are expressly chart
cred"
MIR. Richards Defends the Law.
Mr.. Richards. in defense Of the
statute, began his argument by quoting
the local option law in full. Then he
said:
I'm considering the constitutionality
of this statute. two inquiries naturally
suggest themselves viz:
'First-Whether the statute IN ques-
tion is in conflict with the constitution
of the United States.
Whether the statute In
question in in conflict with the consti-
tuition Of the State Of Delaware"
Mr.. Richards referred to United
States Supreme Court decisions and
contended that they had decided that
local option statutes OF States were not
in conflict with the Federal Constitu-
tion's regulation Of commerce. Mr..
Richards also argued that the highest
courts had decided that state statute
prohibiting. licensing, or regulating
the manufacture and sale of intoxioat-
ing liquors Including so-called local
option" statutes), is not obnoxious to
the Federal constitution, even though
such statute may iniuriously affect the
business or the privileges of corpora
tions or others possessing the right. by |
charter or legislative grant, at the time |
of the enactment of such statute, to |
manufacture or sell liquors He con- |
tended that State statutes prohibiting |
the manufacture and sale of liquor or
a local option submission, are not in /
conflict with the Fourteenth amend |
ment of the Federal constitution, and |
added:
1T is. therefore, respectfully submit
ted that an examination of the Federal |
constitution and of the above cited |
authorities discloses that the statute
of the Sta4e of Delaware now under |
consideration is not unconstitutional !
by reason of being in conflict with any
provision of the Federal constitution.
Rice VS.. Foster Case overruled.
1T is claimed that the General As
semhly has no power to submit the
question OF license or no license TO the |
people anywhere. in all the districts, |
or in any district, except at the general
election"
Mr.. Richards argued that the special |
election submission was constitutional |
without regard to the question Of 4
whether the case of Rice VS.. Foster is (
a well considered decision and correct |
ly decided; and without regard 70 the |
fact that this case has been times al
most without number considered and |
commented upon by the courts Of last |
resort Of many other States in this |
country and severely criticised, indeed |
overruled, so far as the courts of an
other jurisdiction can overrule a deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court Of this
State.
'It is respectfully submitted that It |
is absurd to say that the Legislature.
except under express authority. may
never constitutionally provide for hold
ing a special election except special /
elections for the filling OF vacancies in
the General Assembly itself. The fact
that this sort of a special election is |
the only one directly and expressly re-
ferred to in the constitution is no limi-
tation upon the power Of the Legisla-
ture 20 provide for special elections
with resnect to other matters.
1T is undoubtedly true that the con-
stitution must be construed by the
existence or non-existsnce of a request
of members of the General Assembly
from the several districts Of the State.
II there be a request of sufficient NUM-
ber of the members from a certain dis
trict for a submission of the question,
the second sentence of Section makes
it mandatory upon the members Of the
General Assembly TO pass a statute
submitting the question of license or
prohibition to the voters of that dis
trict, and by such statute the General
Assembly. when acting directly upon
the request of such a majority of the
members from certain district. must
provide that the vote to be taken shall
be taken at the next general election.
Under the first sentence Of Section
1 the General Assembly. on the other
hand, are vested with plenary power,
in their own discretion. and at their
own volition, to pass a law submitting
said question to vote In any or all the
districts, asfthey may see fit.
Where the General Assembly had
presented TO them a request from
certain district. such as Is prescribed
by the constitution. and as shown by