Smyrna times., 1908-01-22
COURT RESERVES DECISION
ON THE LOCAL OPTION LAW
CASE ARGUED BEFORE COURT OF GENERAL
SESSIONS OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY.
Willard Salisbury, Esq.,, Attacks the COnsti-
tutionality Of the Law and Robert H. Rich
ards, Attorney General Defends II.

The fight to have the special local
option election last November, when
Kent and Sussex counties went dry"
declared unconstitutional, was begun
in the New Castle County Court of
General Sessions IN Wilmington We'd
nesday afternoon, before Chief Justice
Lore and Associate Judges Pennewill
and Grubb. Should the law authoriz-
ing the special election be declared
void, the effect on the prohibition cause
generally throughout the county would
be pronounced. The effort to have the
law set aside is based on the indict-
ments against John Wesley Fountain,
James Mason and Vincent Ballard,
negroes, of Middletown. No matter
what the finding of the lower court
may be, it is said, an appeal will be
taken to the State Supreme Court, and
a final decision will probably not be
reached for year. Willard Salisbury
argued that the statute must be de-
| clared unconstitutional for these rea-
sons:
The G neral Assembly 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.
Before the General Assembly has the power
under Article Mi of the tOnStituuOn TO submit
to lie vJters ofany or all the dStrt IS ofthe Stae
the qu stiOn of license or no license a majority
Of the members of the General Assembly IN eacf
House, from each district in which such question
/ s II a a condition nrpCa0ent
submit request as provided in said article fU
the submission of the request. This request il
Necessary 10 give the General Assembly th'
power to submit the questSOn of license or IL
license under Article Mi of the Constitution.
"Ihe act is unconstitutional in that by Section
II and l. thereof an unconstitutional delegation
of legislative power is attempted to be made t.
the voters i'll each separate district the penaltie
and processes provided by said sections bein
enforceable only if "A majority of the electors il
any district vote to enforce the same. This
clearly unconstitutional under the decision q
",The act is sunconstitutional because it violate
Section Is of Article II of the Constitution pGC
hibiting more than one subject being embrace
in an act or in the title thereof The act unde
consideration embraces two subjects, both
which are expressed in the title
The constitutionality of the law wa
defended by Attorney General Robel
Richards, who, in his brief, sets fort
that two inquiries naturally sugge'
themselves "Whether the statute i
question is in conflict with the Coz
stitution of the United States
"Whether the statute in question is
conflict with the Constitution of til
State of Delaware?" The Attorne
General contends that statutes like IL
one referrrd to have been held not
contravene the provisions of I'll
Federal Constitution relative to ii
impairIng of contracts, though the
can cause revocation and forfeiture
licenses for the manufacture or sal
of intoxicating liquors The decisio
/ of the Court is awaited with great i
terest by the entire State, which
divided between the supporters
temperance and the liquor men.