Weekly Arizona journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1903-1908, 1908-01-15
Phoenix SaloonkeeperS
larry Fight + The
Nuprgm, lour'
Decision W ii. Be Of
lnterg>- 10 Local
We And" Dry>'

.scs DtHs
... ...a.uDs r' 'b.a.
ea. .. .ra. od,nrtg,
ga point .he, avo. Boz no re.i.
eru lpn ea. progress liar
.ooa .or. enc eHi care DO. matter
Set. .r, nur-.wr .oo, Speaking
7. -s .,uo,oc ls t ace .rras ne
Hro. Hrurblicpr snys
saddcc lciny,ng 'rs '..a, vas
.acrur,csr, yesterday r, '-omot
srs 20 .n. ocal optic. uo. ucn "hc
boar l} supervisor er. gagged ~
tho completion 90 .nc lection AL. 10y
liking b. polling place. ana naming
she election officers VINO. vorn vas 'e.
coivcd ihn, tha mlo0nkcepcp md ON
ploypt Judgs Stiiwci' d, Apply Cor an
injunction .tsira.ning ,no board from
.ssuiuV .r ,a. ss intended .c eco
efan"-ilg
rhg utea.o ~ he opposition vas
communicated District Attorney
Bullara who Gfta. difference with
Judge StiliwrN ton nftcrwnrd with
udgo Nrul announced to ,ho board
she situation which matters stood.
", said bat o nc proposed ipiunction
proceeding .h' 'casiitutionality Of the
locsi ppiior aw would be- attacked lie
said shat stipulation had hcon en-.
tered into 1y which Il formal applica
t,ou for ,cmporary restraining order
would D., made 90 Judge Kent ut =
50 clock aud formal order denying %
igranting the injunction would bo taken
from It To- the supreme court which will
sit tins week The stipulation provided
that both sides should waive the time
for ding brief. and permit tao matter
g. come directly before the cour,
m, supervisors consented to the
plan suggested by Mr. Bullard and at
clock ~ application was made 10
Judg, Kent ,o' a temporary injunction
At ho sane Sim, there was submitted
az agreed statement Of .a,ts rho mp
pliontior WIS formally dcuicd ana the
.cn-o Their vent. under thu stipulation.
90 the supreme court
In the meantime the board u ~
pervisors completed the making out Of
the call, that Is. the selection # polling
places and election officers, All his
will come IN handy " the decision II
the supreme court snould bo favorable
20 the local option law
1t Is contondci by the saloonkcop
'on thht che law IN unconstitutional N
that the Legislature delegates Ia boards
Of supervisors the power - enactinp
prohibition when there ~ no constitu
tioual authority To- such delegation OF
power II II the .hcory 81 The appli
cant Tor the Injunction that me hogis
nature Itself might navo enacted pro
hibition subject 10 the vote of the PEG
ole In The districts affected
In al. states whore there ~, ioca
option laws county authorities an,
municipalities are empowered 60 ie
ware lNhhlhl'lnh llNifltiA hi iN' "fl'
of the pcopl, hut 80 such states 'her'
are constitutional provisions permit
tlpg the legislator, e. confer sucl
power
"Rcfewncc rs made IN Texas dcci
SION on the old prohibition law o
TrSns which was declared unconstitu
tionHl Oh the same grounds M are oc
eupicd Ia tails ease The constitution
WINS nftcrward amended so tina, tn
power of establishing local option dis
tricis might b, conferred upon th
county authorities
''Tho advocates IT prohibition clair
that this move II the opposition ~
confession Of weakness and las
stand There ~ a growing belief tina
local option will carry "a the county