Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1910-12-03

within such city contrary to the
general law of the state.
when the general law prohlb-
it's or makes certain business
criminal, the city cannot make
such business lawful by licensing
it,"
The supreme court practically
reverses itself on an important
point. In the case of the Boise
City National bank against the
city of Boise the court held spe-
officially in so many words that a
special city charter can not be a
mended by general law, and
that the only way in which it
could be amended under the con-
stitution would be by special act
of the legislature. That is turn
ed completely over in this c.:sa
The court in this opin'on dis
tinguishes the Mix case from the
bank case. 1t says in effect that
sewers are local matter, while
the control of the liquor traffic is
not purely local, but a matter for
the whole state to handle, and is
ruled by state policy.
The supreme court does not
mince words in giving it's opinion
of the liquor traffic, saying in
part:
1T is almost universally recog-
nized that indulgence in intoxica-
ting liquors leads to immortality,
crime and pauperism and that
such liquors are in their nature
dangerous to the morals, good or
der, health and safety of the peo-
pie, and intoxicating liquors are
not placed on the same footing
with ordinary commodities.
"The business Of selling such
liquors has for many years, both
in this country and in England,
been regarded by legislatures and
courts with disfavor, and it does
not stand upon the same plane of
utility and morality with the use
full arts, trades and professions.
1T has been held by long line
of decisions of the United States
supreme court down that there
is no inherent right in a citizen
of a state or of the United States
to sell Intoxicating liquor by retail
1.-The right to engage in the re-
tail liquor traffic is a mere priv
ilege, and in de lining the extent
to which the privilege goes, the
law should be strictly construed
against the traffic.
considering the view that is
generally held in regard to the
retail liquor business, by the. a.
doption of the local option law,
the legislature intended to au
thorize the electors of each coun-
ty to determine whether the sale
of intoxicating liquors should be
prohibited in the county.
"Section 7 of the local option
law shows the intent of the leg
islature to make that law apply
to all territory within a county,
in special charter cities as well
as cities Incorporated under the
general law. 1t provides among
other things, that if a majority
of the votes cast at such election
shall be in favor Of the proposit-
ion submitted (that is, to prohibit
the sale Of intoxicating liquors in
such county, it shall thereafter
be unlawful for the board of cour
ty commissioners of the county to
grant any person, firm, associa-
ton, corporation or club a licen-
Sc to sell or dispose of intoxica-
ting, spirituous, malt or ferment-
ed liquors or wines within said
county.
"It is there declared that it
shall be unlawful for a board of
county commissioners to grant
license to sell or dispose of such
liquors within said county-not
10 eA!snIox9 G4unoo pres u!ql!!M
special charter cities.
"Had the legislature intended
to exclude special charter cities
from the operation of said act, it
would have been an easy matter
to use clear and explicit language
to that effect, but the phrase
within said county has been u.s.
ed, which clearly means within
every part and parcel of said
county and does not exclude spe-
cial charter cities from the oper-
alton of said local option law. "
Novo no pxy E1ocfu 0fficorc