The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1910-01-07
Law IS BEFORE
SUPREME COURT


Supreme Court Tuesday, when cases
involving the constitutionality of the
statute was presented on appeal from
the district courts of Canyon and Ida
he counties. The law was assailed
by the joint forces and attacked on
the ground that it was ambiguous,
unintelligiblo and uncertain for rea-
reasons set forth as follows:
1t neglects to fix the period of reg
istration; time at which registrars
may accept registration; time for
notification OF voters upon what day
they may present themselves for reg
istration, and allows registrars to fix |
their own time for accepting regis
tration, which is alleged to be con-
trary to the decision of thte supreme
court in the case Of Knight vs.. Trigg.
The statute, it is contended by at
torneys representing the appellants,
is in violation of section 10, article 3
Of the constitution of the state of
Idaho because it is a special and
local law in that it provides for the
conducting of elections and refunding
money paid into the state treasury.
Other alleged unconstitutional fea-
lures of the law as set forth by coun-
sci are as follows:
1t authorizes unreasonable searches
and seizures; denies the residents of
other states the right to solicit orders
in the state of Idaho; makes a dis
tinction between the wholesale manu-
facturers of Intoxicating beverages
and non-wholesale manufacturers of
the same. 1t is further contended
that the statute has not an unity of
subject in title.
The provision which provides that
uon-residents of the state shall not
be allowed to solicit orders is cited in
being in violation of the interstate
commerce clause of the federal con-
stitution.
Attorneys Karl Paine Edwin Snow
and H. G. Redwine represented the
APP oellants at the hearing and Attor-
ney-General McDougal, Assistant At
torney General J. H. Peterson, John
F. MacLane and o. M. Van Duyn of
Canyon county and j. M. Gilmore of
Idaho county, the state.
In conclusion the brief filed by At
torney General McDougall in the case
of Gillesby VS.. the Canyon county
board of commissioners, states:
From the earliest territorial days
in Idaho there has been a conflict
waged against the sale of intoxicating
liquors. Campaigns have been made,
legislatures have ben memorialized
and lobbys haye been conducted m
our legislative halls against the sa-
loon. Entrenched behind powerful
organizations, assisted by unlimited
have heretofore prevented the pas
sage of any adequate laws applying
to their so-called business. But
throughout all these years public
Indignation has been growing, or
ganization has been taking place in
the farming districts as well as in
tho cities. Political parties found
that the sentiment had grown to such
magnitude that they were compelled
to take cognizanco of it. The cam
paign was squarely and tiercely
wnged and II legislature was obtained
majority of whom were for local
, option. This is the elimination of a
, fight that has been gathering vol
um9 for many years. The people of
, Ia state have determined that the
saloon must go.
10 date vote has been taken on
this issue in II counties OF the state
all but two of which have voted nc
saloon To date approximately 49,
e ISL citizens of the state have express
: I'D themselves on this proposition and
out of this number only 1887 voted
r for the saloon, a majority of 1887
against the saloon.
"These facts are given for reasons
p. first, of showing that the local option
5 law of the state is capable of accom-
0 plishing the results for which it was
e drawn, and secondly, to show that tn,
= magnitude of the question before the
court.
y I'm question of this importanc,
and far-reaching effect, the court, un
a der its rule so many times expressed
=. will look very closely into the techni
$ cal objections now urged by ingenious
e counsel.
y I'VE believe the law to present n