The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1909-02-04
Grounds for Complaint.

for, on three points, involving the
constituthonality OF the Local Option
law, and the fact that no appropria-
ton has been made for holding the
special election, by the county coun-
Gil All OF these points have been
rassed in other counties, and have
been decided in both ways.
Title of Complaint.
TIE gist oil the allegations contain
ed in the complaint are as follows
First, The County Council OF Mar
shall county has made NO approprla-
ton for holding special local option
election an the county. There is no
money in the county treasury from
any former appropriation for holding
an election and that it is unlawful to
incur debt for. which no appropria-
tfon has been made.
Second, The law which provides
for holding a Local Option election
is unc constitutional
Section 25, Article 1, of the Con-
stitution of Indiana provides that,
No law shall be passed, the taking
effect OF which shall be made TO de-
pend upon any authority as provided
in tbs constitution"
Section 26, Article I, OF the consti-
tuition provides that, The operation
of the laws shall never be suspended
excepting by authority of the General
Assembly"
Under these provisions the plain
tiffs contend that the license laws of
the state may be made 10 take effect,
or not take effect lin any county, at
the VIII Of the majority of votes cast
at any election. and that the local OPP
ton laws may be suspended in any
county by light vote which is not
an authority OF the General Assem-
bly, OF the State OF Indiana ~
Clause 10, Section 22, Article 4, OF
the constitution, provides that, THE
General Assembly shall not pass local
or special laws in any of the follow
ing enumerated cases, that is to say,
county and township bust
ness" i \. i
Section %, Article 4 provides that
In all the cases enumerated in the
preceding section, and in all other
cases where a general law can be
made applicable, all laws shall be
general, and of uniform operation
throughout the state"
Third, Plaintiff contends that under
these sections the law providing for
a county option election is in conflict
with these provisions of the constitu-
ZION, because in effect the county op-
ton law is not general, but local in
its operation, and not in effect, or in
effect, according as the people OF the
county may determine Plaintiff fur
ther contends that the precise ques
ton was decided by the Supreme
court in the case of Maize versus
State of Indiana, 4th Indiana, page
342.
In this case the Supreme Court
held unconstitutional a law provid-
ing that the voters of any township
might by majority vote, decide
that no license should be issued in
the township. This decision has
never been overruled, and until the
act of September &c, 1905, when the
Local Option law was enacted, no
aw off a similar character has ever
been passed by the legislature.
Acted Upon Thursday.
Tie petition for the Local Option
election will be reached by the Com
Thursday morning when
hey will set the time for holding a |
ocal option election in Marshall |
When interrogated by Atto--
ney Martindale Monday afternoon,
,rior to the fling of an injunction
'uit, as to what they would do in re-
gard TO the option petition the COM
nissioners individually replied, that if
iuch was the law, if the petition was
-egulsr, and If everything was regu
ar, then of course they would call an
alection for what else could they do?