The star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1908-1909, 1908-02-27
AGAINST INVASION OF
INAuIENABLE RIGHTS.
BULLETIN NO.. s..

The official opinion on a local
option bill, by former Attorney-G Cen
eral Gilchrist. whose closing sentence
eliminating in declaring such legis-
lation clearly and distinctly forbidden
by the constitution was quoted in No.
4 of these bulletins, was based, in
substance, upon the following reason
ing:
The bill in question provides that,
after a balloting had in any town.
city or county of the State and a ma
iority of the votes cast appearing to
have been against issuing of licenses
for the sale of intoxicating beverages,
selling of such beverages within that
locality shall be illegal and persons
caught atitguilty of acrlminal offense.
Therefore, at the caprice Of a majority
of those having voted on the subject
in one or the other local community
something shall there become a crilni-
nal offense which in the remainder
of the State shall not be considered
as such.
Wherever a law under the proviso
\ that a majority vote in a subdivision
of the State have declared against a
certain act has decreed that act to be-
come a criminal offense within such
subdivision, that law, when contested,
has been adjudged to be unconstitu-
tional. This was done in Pennsylva-
MIA, Iowa, Michigan, Delaware and
Rhode Island, and upon the principle
that a criminal offense can legally be
created solely by the will of the Legis-
lature, and not by the will or caprice
of a majority vote in this or that part
of the State. For in the Legislature,
and in it alone, is vested all legislative
power-also by the Constitution of
our State-and to M other hands can
that body delegate a portion of that
power. This it would do by IN enact
ment making dependent upon a bal
loting in a town, city or county
whether or not a certain act shall
there become a criminal offenSe.
OF laws, the entering into effect
whereof in this or that subdivision OF
the State is made dependent upon the
consent of a ma jority of the votes
cast at a balloting upon the question,
only such are admissible under the
Constitution which delegate no legis
lative power and only authorize enact
ment of by-laws for local administers
tion.
1t is seen Mr.. CHECKLISTS opinion
was based Solely upon the section OF
the Constitution setting forth that
the legislative power shall be vested
in the Legislature. The Pennsylvania
decision against a local option law
was also based. upon the section OF The
keystone States Constitution pro
hibiting enactmento of laws regulating
the affairs of towns, cities or counties,
etc. a similar prohibition is con
tanned in Sec. x Art..IV., of the Con
stitution Of our State. And beside
this IT. seems worth considering
whether Sec. Is of Art. T., ofthat in
stru6ient, which DEGREES thatsprivatt
proSerty shalt notsbe taken for publ,
p~ures Fses without Just compensation
dosHiot' also involve the prohibition
ofssGcaf optiof--legislation uftbont pro
oistop for inst eoRtbsns alton 10 those fbeStbj
fHfafed in Their Ptf0dk property. -
Local option legislation, as its agi
tators a~sSeverate, is urged ''for the
public weal.'' That the public wea
is a public purpose, and that such leg
islation would deprive many hundreds
in the State,o OF their private property,
can hardly be disputed.
Press Bureau German-American Cen.
trial, Alliance, Newark, N. j.