Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1911-06-02
THE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS
JUDGE CALKIN's DECISION.
COUNTY CONTINUES DRY
Effect of Former Dry Vote Not Abro-
gated by Home Rule Amend

In the case of the state VS. Hearn,
going up from Josephine county, the
state supreme court yesterday affirm
ed the decision of Judge f. M. Calk-
ins of the circuit court here. In other
words the supreme court holds that
prohibition Is In effect in Grants Pass,
that en- amendment to the state con-
stitution, as the home-rule amend
ment, can not abrogate former vote
Of the people Of Josephine county. or
any county, The opinion was given
in the case of Schuler, from Joseph,
Wallowa county, though the court at
the same time affirmed the decision
of Judge Calkins In the Hearn case.
The case of Schuler involved the
same question presented to the su-
preme court In state vs. Hearn, and
involved the operation of the home-
rule amendment in the city Of JOS
eph In eastern Oregon.
The Joseph case being the first one
decided discusses the legal aspects
of the case at length, and this decis-
ion is not yet available, except as re-
ported through the Portland papers,;
end the decision In the Grants Pass
case is brief, referring to theme ex-
tended findings In the Joseph case,
so that 1t Is difficult at this time
to state with any certainty Just how
fer reaching the decision Is as against
the home-rule amendment,
However, this much Is certain the
court holds that the effect of for
mer dry vote In any given territory
is not abrogated by the home-rulC
amendment as to any portion OF the
territory embraced within the lin
+ IT'S of an incorporated town, and the
effect OF the dry vote continues II
accordance with the provisions ol
the local option law the same al
though the home-rule amendmen
had not been adopted.
Whether or not another vote coult
be had within the limits OF terrltor!
voting dry within two years from
the time OF the election was not II
issue in either OF these cases, no
necessary for determination OF tn
matters involved In either case; bu
the general trend Of the decision
as reported through the papers, In
dicates, that the local option Law
being still in full force and effect
territory voting dry must continu
Dry for two years at least and tina
on election can be held on the subjec
within that two year period, and sue
would doubtless be the holding OF tn
court should this specific quest!o
come before II.
Judge Burnett's conourrlng oplr
lon in the Joseph case, as reporte
in the Portland papers, would ind
cate that he goes further than Judg
Moore in rendering the main decision
IN that, the report OF Judge Burnett
opinion ueems TO indicate. that moi
withstandiDg the fact that lncorpol
ated towns are separate units, an
may vote within their own limits II
dependent OF the surrounding terr
tlon law is not 80 changed as TO pre-
tion low Ia not 80 changed as TO pre-
vent the incorporated town from b.
Ing combined with country unts {
precincts, and thereby becoming a
fccted by the vote OF such countr
district. This being the result whlc
would follow his statement that n
term exclusive power" AZ used
the home-rule amendment, ls TO |
construed not In an unrestrlctC
/. sense, and that lnasmuch as 9TH
V, somewhere in the analysis Of almo
v, every criminal prosecution, llqu,
b. appears as a factor The country
M whole pays the expense OF su,
L. litigation from both sides, frcm
s. inception before the committing ma
II istrate TO the final Judgment OF 4
lg supreme court. II, In the analogy
the frank pledge OF the common Ia