Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1910-11-15
ARIZONA, NOV. Is. 1910.
The Need of Style and Revision.


with the initiative and referendum, a
part and a main part of the legisla-
tive machinery, it would be well to
continue the conventions excellent
committee on style, revision and COM
pilation in existence and thus avoid
the embarrassment and humiliation
which frequently attends the opera
ton OF the law in Oregon.
Nearly all the proposed laws of
Oregon are Matched at oregon City
by the Peoples Party league, of
which W. S. U'Ren is the head. Some
of these proposed laws have been dis
tinguished by striking photographed
and grammatical inaccuracies, and
many of them have been of doubtful
meaning or no meaning at all.
One of the results of the election
in Oregon was the decisive rejection
of a prohibition amendment to the
constitution, and the adoption of the
following constitutional amendment
intended to provide segregation for.
cities and towns:
Article N, section 2 Corporations
may be formed under general laws,
but shall not be created by the legis-
lative assembly by special laws The
legislative assembly shall not enact
amend or repeal any charter or act
Of incorporation for any municipality,
city or town. The legal voters of
every city and town are hereby grant
ed power to enact and amend their
municipal charter subject to the con-
stitution and criminal laws of the
state of oregon. and the exclusive
power TO license, regulate. control or
10 suppress or prohibit the sale of
intoxicating liquors therein is vested
in such municipality; but such NUM- |
cipality shall within its limits be sub |
ject TO the provisions of the local |
option law of the state of Oregon"
The OregOnian, commenting on the |
nebulous situation produced thereby, |
says:
No two persons agree upon the
exact meaning or Interpretation of |
this amendment. No two persons will
agree. probably. until it shall be con-
sIrued By the supreme court of the
state of Oregon. The Greater Oregon
1Icme Rule association informs us
that il was the intention of that or
ganization to exempt incorporated
cities and towns of Oregon from the
operation of the local option lay. TO
the extent that each municipality was
t be vested with power to decide the
liduor question for itself
II this was the purpose, which
doubtless it was. it seems remarkable
that the measure could not have been
framed i'm language less confusing.
and ambiguous. 1t was fire.
quently charged during the recent
that the trainers of the
home rule amendment, though they .
made no question of their purpose
to exclude cities and towns from the
arbitrary requirements of county pro- (
h.hition, unless such municipalities 8
should expressly consent, permitted
the measure to go forth in terms
gives color to the accuse I
lion that ii was deliberately intended i!v
hat no one should understand ii. 4;
What ingenious lawyer or assembly
IF lawyers drew it? A ten-year-old n
roy ought to have been able to frame f
n plain language such an amend Il
nent as the Greater Home Rule asso- q
'iation desired; but these lawyers
couldn't or wouldn't.
The first two sentences of the fore Fl
.oinG section are contained in the T
institution as at present. The final -
sentences constitute the proposed
hange. Observe the wording of the Id
asst clause-"But such municipality W
hall within its limits be subject to a,
ne provisions of the local option law h,
t the state of Oregon" The local
ption law of the state of Oregon pro- ~
ides for county prohibition. Prohi-
ltion by counties is its essence, its
ital purpose and absolute intent II -
lch municipality of the state of Ore
on shall hereafter. under the fore e
ping amendment be subject to the
zeal option law of the state of Ore
On. why does it not necessarily fol-
w that they shall and must be sub
ct TO all provisions of the law in II
uding the particular provision that
lforces county prohibition upon all
le territory within county?
The home rule amendment runs tn
'5uhC i'm a circle. In one clause il di
ests in cities and towns the right to TT!
'ntrol. prohibit or suppress the LIQUOR in
lsiness and in the final clause il az
axes, or seems to make. an express ia
'oviso (since the local option law is as
be in full force and effect) that of
at right or privilege shall not be st
ithdrawn from the county The of
eater home rule amendment in the i'm
'inion of the Oregonian. doesn't wa
can anything. or if il means any, tel
ing. ii is that the trainers of the ha
easure have lost themselves in ito