The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-20
WHAT DOES THE Law MEAN?

In The effort 10 give Us on the liquo
question by a roundabout method the
status that existed before the passage %
the new liquor law. the whole State Il
thrown into confusion on that ques
ton This is evident from the fact thai
none Of the lawyers understand what
the new enactment means, and none
of them claims TO he able 10 explain
whether the law is in force now or not
nor what the powers of the city coun
ell are between the 9th of May and tho
LIST of October, Attorney General
] Barnes saws that he does not believe
anyone fully understands the new
liquor law, City Attorney Dinluny
holds that tho new law in its entirety
is now in effect, and that ALI laws and
ordinances heretofore existing govern
ing the regulation and licensing of the
liquor traffic arc superseded. and that
the city council should at once enact
new ordinances conformable 10 the new
law. \ good many skilled attorneys
agree with Mr.. Dininny; others disa-
gree. If Mr.. DiBinny's S Interpretation
is correct, as ii probably is. tho district
courts must now attend to the licensing
OF saloons, and they should have been
attending TO it for the past ten days.
But they have taken no steps in this
direction, and it is possible that they
viii conclude that the law is unconsti.
tulional in imposing upon them adj
ministrativc duties which they, as
courts. would be obliged to pass upon
iudiciaIly in case of controversy,
There is only ono thing that is cor-
tain about this liquor law. and that is
that it has forced upon the state
long period of legal uncertainty and OF
bitter litigation.
In this sea Of uncertainty. of re.
elimination, and of contradictory IN
terpretations, fair-minded citizens must
necessarily look back with regret TO
the settled conditions that VIC had on
thc liquor question prior to the pas
sage OF this illdeylscd legislation. 1t
was political legislation throughout.
and was legislation in q large measure
IN bad faith. The Federal bunch made
a great pretense that it was obliged by
its party pledges to make some sort
of cnactmant on the liquor question;
but il utterly ignored its pledge quite
as direct and quite as binding, on the
income tax proposition; and it ignored
the constitution which required the
legislature To redistrict the State for
legislative purposes. So that even the
small plea in mitigation that the Fed
craI bunch makes cannot be allowed,
since II had no disposition TO fulfil its
pledges. except on this one question,
and that through sheer perversity.
Every one fond Of peace and order will
look back with regret to the former
status, where there was no contention,
and where every community could have
prohibition that wanted it. and every
and did decide, in the way Of local op,
ton,
Doubtless the first legal attacks upon
The law will lie in the challenging of
Is constitutionalItv There would seem
10 be ample ground for this not on Y
in the matter of its Investiture upon
he courts of the double function of adj
and of judicial intcrprcta-
lion: but also in its opposite rule of
with respect TO whether
liquor shall be sold or not; this con-
trary presumption being that in the
.itIcs saloons are presumed, and in the
country districts prohibition is pre-
,umed. Many other points will doubt
less be urged in The same direction,
md there will he always back of every
general proposition raised, rhe long
bitter contest aS TO minor points in the
Interpretation Of the law. This new
liquor statute is hodgepodgc of contra
uncertainties. and puzzles of
various kinds 1t is practically assured
N advance that the litigation which il
forces cannot he settled before the next
legislative session, which will be called
upon, from present appearances. 10 re-
zeal The whole vicious measure. and re-
-torc the quiet, orderly conditions tha
prevailed before its enactment.