Mexico weekly ledger., 1908-06-18

Circuit Judge Barnett on Monday
afternoon, June Is. handed down . de-
cIsion to the effect that the general
primary was not such an election
as would interfere with = local option
election in Mexico within sixty days
OF that date.
The case has attracted considerable
attention throughout the State, and
we give the decision in full
An Abstract Of the opinion OF the Court Ia
passing upon the local option confess:
sin the nandamus matter, ] have
looked up all the authorities submit
ted, and b ayethought over the ques-
tions presented, as l have had oppor-
tuuity during the term, and ! now
feel that the matter ought to BE- dis
posed Of without further delay. The
suggestions made by the respondents,
fist that the law is unconstitutional,
| take 1t that this court is bound b.
the definite decision Of the Supreme
Court. Whether the Supreme Court
would be inclined to revise that de-
cision or not is q matter that must Be
determined by that court; this,a lower
court, has no right TO upset the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court. even IL IT
be rendered b5 a divided court Now
the suggestion is made that the local
option Law has been repealed BY the
enactment Of the various dram shop
laws and amendments later than the
local option law, this does not seem q
tennable position. As / take II the
dram shop Law and the local option
law are simply two sets Of laws con-
trolling conditions which are different
In different counties. Where the
dram shop may be licensed under the
law, me dram shop Law Is effective
where the local option law has beer
adopted, the dram shop law is simply
imperative, but there's no conflict,
each community is under one law Of
the other. Another suggestion Is thai
the city council did NOS refuse to cal
the election, but simply we're consid'
eEing the matter, a final conclusion
not having been reached. This sHg
gestion would be1 very substantial
proposition II this hearing was haC
within the time allotted by Law fol
the city council to act, bat having
failed TO act within that time, tht
suggestion that they had not refuseC
would in effect be q subterfuge
whether considered an Affirmative re
fusal or simply neglect, the result
would be the same; having failed Il
act within the time limited the righI
Of this Court under proper conditions
to enforce action By mandzmus woulG
undoubtedly be complete. And thi
is also true With reference to th,
question Of good filth. / take it thai
no person will doubt that the actor
Of the city council vas in good faith
To follow the advice and to accept thi
opinion OF the city counselor, as ;
broad general proposition, is much TIL
Sisest thing for a city council to do
1t cannot be suggested that in 81 do
ing the council is not acting In gon<
faith. But in the end the proposition
presented is not one Of good faith. II
is a single cold proposition u law, ant
II II happens that the council va
mistaken 10 its view OF the la9, th,
right Of the court, when appealed q
70 put in operation the remedy pre-
scribed By Law, is just as valid wher
the council acts in good faith as wher
IL acts In bad faith. The suggestion
is made that the question is surround.
ed with doubt, and therefore a writ Of
mandamus ought not 70 issue. Thil
would be a valid suggestion II th.
doubt vas one that effected the court
ruling upon the writ, but l take Il
that a doubt described 10 the mind O
the council, q tribunal whose action 4
purely ministerial, would not efiect
the right Of the court TO exercise IL
prerogatiye, provided the doubt va
not one that suggested itself TO th,
mind Of the court Finally there r.