Enterprise news-record. [volume] (Enterprise, Wallowa County, Or.) 1910-1911, 1911-04-12
FIRST TEST HOME
RULE AMENDMENT
JUDGE KNOWLES DECIDES AD-
vERsELY TO LICENSE IN
JOSEPH CASE.

The first case in the state under
the socalled Home Rule amendment
was heard in this city before Judge
J. w. Knowles Wednesday afternoon.
E. T. Schleur, who was granted a
license by the Joseph council to sell
liquors, was arrested and fined $50 in
Justice court there. The case was
appealed but was heard on its merits
from the beginning in the circuit
court yesterday. 1t was a jury trial.
The defense was based on the city
charter of Joseph giving the council
right to license and regulate the sale
of liquors, and on the Home Rule
amendment adopted at the last gen.
eral election.
The jury found the defendant guilty
and he was fined $50. The case will
be taken to the Supreme court at
once. In his decision, Judge Knowles
after citing the Joseph charter, the
Home Rule amendment, and cleo
tions of 1906, 1908 and 1910 by which
the local option law was made ap-
plicable to this county, said:
The record further shows that the
City Of Joseph as a city has never
voted upon the question of prohibit
ion in said city. The questions aris-
ing upon this record are:
First, Did the City Of Joseph have
the power to license the defendant
to sell intoxicating liquors within
the limits of said city, under said
Constitutional Amendment and,
Secondly, Did said city have such
power without first submitting the
question of prohibition to a vote of
the people of said city
1t is we'll settled in this state that
Ia the construction of statute, the
cardinal point Is to ascertain the in
tention of the law-maker and this in
tention must be determined from the
language used, taking the words in
their plain, natural and obvious sig
MITIGATION. Ankeny VS. Multnomah CO.
unity Ore. 271. Kamer VS. Culatsop
county, 6 Ore. 238. State ex rel. VS.
Simon, 20 Ore. 1856. City of Portland
ve Meyer, 80 Ore. 1868. Dutre VS. Ladd
so Ore. 100.
In the case of State ex rel VS.
Simon, supra, the opinion of the SUI
preme Court, among others things
says:
Courts must not, even In order to
give effect to what they may suppose
to be the intention of the legislature
put upon a statute construction not
supported by the words, even although
the consequences should be to defeat
the object of the act. This Is case,
1t would seem, where the legislature
has omitted by mistake or otherwise
to make the necessary provisions to
carry out its intention, but we can
not by construction supply these omis-
sions. AS was said by J. Davis, 1T
Is always competent for the legislature
TO speak clearly and without equivo-
cation, and 1t is safer for the judi
cial department to follow the plain
and obvious meaning of an act, rath-
er than 10 speculate upon what might
have been the views of the leglsla-
ture in the emergency which may have
arisen"
Also in the case Of Dutre vs. Ladd,
so Ore. 1913, the court speaking by
King, CON-, says:
when the language Is clear, we
have no discretion but to adopt the
meaning which 1t imports"
Now under the Amendment of the
Constitution above quoted every town
city or municipality is given "the ex.
elusive power to license, regulate,
control or to suppress or to pro.
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquors:
but such municipality shall within Its
limits be subject to the provisions
Of the local option law of the State
of Oregon.
photographers define the word "sul
ject" as meaning ito make liable
Ito bring under the control or action
Of" ito make subservient."
| l believe that the only reasonable
construction that can be placed upon
the above constitutional amendment
Is that where the local option law Is
In force In county by a vote of
the people Of such county, that
towns. cities and municipalities do
not have the right to license the
sale of intoxicating liquors within the
corporate limits of said town, munich
pality or city.
In the case of Scott VS. Ford, So
Ore. 2Ss, the Supreme Court of this