The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-06-03
Decision of Bartholomew Cir
cult Court to Be Appeal
ed by Vets.
BIG VICTORY. FOR DRYs
WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT
WHICH AUTHORIZED CONTEST
OF ELECTION.

Indianapolis, Ind, June Gone Of
the most important questions that
have been raised thus far. affecting the
constitutionality OF the county local
option law is the one that is going to
the supreme court from Bartholomew
county as a result Of the decision by
Judge Hacker, yesterday, that the
county local option law does not can
tain any provision under which a local
option election can be contested. Bar
tholomew county went dry at the cleo
ton and the vets selected three men
to make a contest of the election. The
drys fought this proposition on the
ground that no contest was provided
for in the law. and Judge Hacker held
in their favor.
First Decision.
While there has been much discus
sion of this question all over the state
ever since the counties began holding
elections. this is the first time that the
question has been squarely decided by
court. There are many lawyers who
believe the law is defective because it
does not provide a means by which a
contest may be made. They say the
law confers on the county commission
ers final jurisdiction to decide the re-
suit of an election, and that this is
contrary to the constitution. They
argue that never before in the history
of the state has there been an election
law that closed the avenue Of appeal
against the loser at an election. The
general election law contains such a
provision and lays down the procedure
for contest. The local option law
says that on all matters not specifical-
ly covered by the county option law
the general election laws shall govern.
1t is pointed out that even under this
provision a contest may be made, but
Judge Hacker has decided otherwise.
Some of the lawyers believe the SUI
preme court will declare the local OPP
ton law unconstitutional on this
ground, but the drys feel that the law
is safe.
Number Of Cases.
There is a number of cases before
the supreme court in which the consti-
tutionality of the local option law is
attacked. but this is the first time 1t
has been questioned on the ground OF
not providing for contest.
The Indiana Anti-saloon league
finds that the sale of near beer is in
creasing rapidly in the dry counties
of the state. and the league is going
after it with sharp stick. Not long
ago the officers at Bloomington sliced
a large quantity of near beer in raid
on some blind tigers. and it is said
that an analysis of some OF 1t shows
that it contained large per cent of al
cohol-a larger per cent. in fact. than
is ueually contained in real lager.
Nothing has been made public in re.
gard to this. however.
Near-Beer Cases.
A case involving the right to sell
near-beer is on it's way to the supreme
court from Clinton county. Over
there. a man who sold the stuff was
arrested on a charge Of selling malt
vinous or spirituous liquors without
license and in dry county. He was
fined $50 an costs. 1t was held in that
case by the city court, and the decision
was affirmed by the Clinton circuit
court, that in such a case it is not nee
essary for the state to prove that the
liquor was intoxicating. 1t is suffi-
cient. the court holds. il the state
proves merely that it was malt liq-
uor. This question, however, has been
decided both ways by the lower courts
of several of the counties. and the Clin-
ton county case will be the one that
will bring about final decision by the
supreme court.