The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-12-16
Indiana Supreme Court Today
Hands Down a Decision
That Statute Does Not Wo-
late Constitution.
TWO JUSTICES FIND
AGAINST VALIDITY
But the Other Three Sustain
Decision of Hamilton Coun-
ty Judge, Who Heard Case
Testing the Act.
(American News Service)

(American News Service)
Indianapolis. Dec. 16.-The supreme
court of Indiana declared the county
unit local option law to be constitu-
tionaf:~
A divided opinion was handed down
today. On the dissenting side were
Judges Jordan and Montgomery.
Judges Monks. Myers and Hadley held
the law to be valid and affirmed the
decision Of the Hamilton Circuit court
in which test case was made.
Origin of the Case.
The test case was that of George Nc
Pherson, convicted in Hamilton coun-
ty on charge of selling liquor in vio-
lation of the law. Mcpherson kept a
saloon in Noblesville for which he
obtained license, May s. 1908. for one
year. The governor approved the op-
tion law September 26, 1908, and the
same had already taken effect before
McPherson's license was issued. In
January Hamilton county voted dry"
More than ninety days afterward. Nc
Pherson sold a drink of whiskey, was
arrested and fined twenty dollars and
costs. Mcpherson appealed. claiming
unconstitutionality. The only ques-
tion the court discussed and decided
vision of the constitution. Judge
Hadley wrote the opinion of the court
1t says the title of the act is sufficient
that it does not attempt to confer di-
rect legislative powers upon people of =
county: that it's taking effect in each
county is not made to depend on the
holding of an election and that it does
not provide for suspension of liquor
laws by popular vote. Cases are cited
from nine other states where the high
est courts have held similar legislation
constitutional.
Dissenting Opinion.
Judge Jordan wrote the dissenting
opinion. which Montgomery concurred
it. and gave notice that the opinion in
dissent will be elaborated upon in due
time. The dissenting opinion de-
clares that while the subject matter of
law is prohibitory, the title purports
to be law to Regulate, restrict and
control the liquor traffic. The
judge says the title is misfit: that the
purpose of the legislation. as revealed
in plain terms and language, is to pro.
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquors as
beverage within the counties of the
state No one can claim that it pro.
fesses to or does regulate or control or
| restrict it is stated. 1T is absurd to
talk of restricting that which does not
exist
The dissenting opinion calls atten.
tion to former decisions of the Indi
ana supreme court and courts of Other
states in line with the finding that the
option law is invalid as to misfit title
Opinion Of HadIey.
In closing the dissenting opinion i,
disclaims any intention to question the
power cf the legislature to enact a Law
under a title responding to require
ments of the constitution and along
proper and recognized lines. by which
a legal voter of ward, township Of
county may be authorized to determine
by ballot at an election held for the
purpose. whether the sale of liquor
as beverage shall be prohibited in the
ward. township or county. Judge Had
| ley. in his opinion. said if the optior
| law under existing title was invalid
| then the remonstrance law, which &C
| complishes the same effect, in another
way. is likewise invalid.
Judge Hadley. discussing the law
| says: The act before us is one Of reg
| ulation. or one of prohibition-one ol
the other 1t cannot be both and
| avoid being double, which no one
claims. Every county may retain it,
| saloons. some counties that are now
| wet may become dry and some now dry
may become wet. according to the SEN
timent Of the electors. at the end oi
two years Shall We call this regula
| ton or prohibition:
1T is incomprehensible how the Law
may be absolute prohibition and in it.
self provide means and terms under
which sales may be continued or re-
s,rned in any counties Of the state"