The Lake County times., 1909-06-03
NOCONTEST
PROVIDED IN
co. OPTION
Bartholomew County Men
Appeal Case to Supreme
Court to Test Laws Con-
stitutionality on This
Point.
TIMES BUREAU,
AT STATE CAPITAL.


the most important questions that have
been raised thus far affecting the con-
stitutionality Of the county option law
is the one that is going to the supreme
court from Bartholomew county as
result Of the decision by Judge Hacker.
yesterday that the county option law
does not contain any provision under
which a local option election can be
contested. Bartholomew county went
dry at the election and the vets selected
three men to make contest Of the cleo
tion. The drvs fought this proposition
on the ground that no contest was pro-
vided for in the law, and Judge Hacker
held in their favor.
Question Is Raised.
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 con-
! trary 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 a con-
test. The local option law says that on
all matters not specifically covered by
the county option law the general cleo
tion laws shall govern. 1t is pointed
| out that even under this provision a
contest may be made. but Judge Hacker
decided otherwise. Some OF the law
yers believe the supreme court will de-
clare the local option law unconstitT-
tional on this ground, but the drys feel
that the law is safe
Sale of Near Beer Increases.
| There are a number of cases before
the supreme court in which the con-
stitutionality Of the local option law is
attacked, but this Is the first time it
has been questioned on the ground OF
not providing for contest.
The Indiana Anti-Saloon league finds
that the sale of near beer is increasing
rapidly in the dry counties OF the state,
and the league is going after it with a
sharp stick. Not long ago the officers
| of Bloomington seized a large quantity
| of near beer in a raid on some blind tig-
ers, and it is said that an analysis OF
some of 1t shows that II contained a
large percent of alcohol--a larger per-
cent, in fact, than IS usually contained
in real lager Nothing has been made
public in regard to this however.
Another Question Raised.
case INVOLVING the right to sell
near beer Is on it's way to the supreme
court from Clinton county. over there
man who sold the stuff was arrested
on a charge OF selling malt, vinous or
spurious liquors without a license and
in a dry county. He was fined $50 and
costs. 1t was held in that case by the
city court, and the decision was af-
firmed by the Clinton circuit court, tina,
in such a case 1t is not neces sary for
the state to prove that the liquor was
intoxicating. 1t is sufficient. the court
holds. If the state proves merely that
1t was a malt liquor This question
however, has been decided both ways
by the lower courts of several counties
? and the Clinton county case will bt
the one that will bring about a fina
decision by the supreme court.
Near Beer Bill Killed.
At the last session of the legislatur,
l g bill was introduced by Representative,
Wells Of Fort Wayne, which propose,
to permit the sale in dry counties o
n beverages containing less than one-hal
Y Of one per cent of alcohol 1t wa
S pointed out that this would permit tn
f sale of near beer in such counties an,
o that It might open up the way for tn,
r sale of liquors containing more thar
= one-half Of one per cent of alcohol. I
s was feared that dealers might take ad
c vantage Of the opening and sell rea
d beer under the guise of near beer
8 Health officials stated that liquors con
t tainging not more than one-half o
n one per cent of alcohol ought not to b
T prohibited anywhere. They said s.
d small an amount of alcohol would no
o be intoxicating But the bill failed t
5. pass In fact it was killed in commit
n tee The temperance people insiste
= they saw in the bill an effort on tn
n mart Of the brewers to work up a nev
s market for their product. 1t was point
= ed out that so many counties were go
e ing dry and so many breweries wer
being forced out Of the business o
s manufacturing beer that they would b
L obliged to find new field for thei
d obliged to manufacture something be
1t sides beer Of course, brewery tina
n can make beer can also make near bee
and If the right to sell near beer in dr.
l. territory is established and upheld b
lie the courts it will afford the otherwis
N idle breweries a wide market for thei
le new product Nearly every brewery i
n the state is already manufacturing nea
+ beer, in connection with their produc
y ton Of beer.
n Some Interesting Figures.
8, Some interesting figures have bee
prepared by the Anti-Saloon people I
D. show the growth of the dry area
Indiana IN The last farr vanru Annr