Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1911-01-27
COURT DECIDES
ELECTION ILLEGAL
THEORETICALLY DRY, BUT
PRACTICALLY WET.
AN ORDINANCE IS PASSED
Judge Calkins Holds County Local
Option Law Still in
Force.

Hamlet's dilemma, to be or not
to be-" fits the present situation of
the liquor question.
Confusion is just the word for
the present status. Some are won
dering whether the ruling means
that the saloons will not be licensed.
Others believe that nothing will be
definitely known until the supreme
court settles the question.
AS the thing stands it seems as if
the council has no right to issue
licenses, for, according to the ruling,
1t has no more right to license sa-
looms that the county court or any
other unauthorized body.
The opinion Of Judge Calkins,
given in full, Is as follows:
Friday morning Judge Calkins of
the circuit court overruled the de-
murrers to the indictments of the
men accused of violating the local
option liquor laws. In his opinion,
which Is published here in full
Judge Calkins holds that the county
local option law is still in force in
Grants Pass and that the last elec-
tion was not authorized.
In the Circuit of the State Of Oregon
for Josephine County.
The State of Oregon VS.. Jack
Whitsett.
This matter was submitted to the
court for determination upon the
demurrer to the indictment filed
herein. The only question for de-
cision is whether the constitutional
amendment known as the home rule
bill operates to repeal the local op'
tion law so far as it affects Grants
Pass.
Until the taking of effect of the
amendment known as the home rule
amendment, all municipalities of the
state with a few exceptions as Med
ford) were subject to the provision:
of the local option law, that law be-
ing held to be criminal law (Bax
ter VS.. State, 40 Ore. 353), and was
migrated onto every municipal char
ter (Renshaw VS.. Lane County, Al
Ore. $500. Our supreme court has
also held in a number of cases tha
the local option law does not repea
the provisions of city charters, per
hitting them to license, regulate an(
control; but that the two law'
should be read together. (Renshav
VS.. Lane Co. supra.) That citie
could exercise the right granted ii
their charters, until deprived there
of in the manner prescribed by th'
local option law" That during thu
operation of the local option law th'
provision of the city charter Is sus
pended. In Hall VS.. Dunn (52 Ore
475) the court distinguishes betweel
a charter like that of Medford, whicl
provides that the city shall have tn
power to license, ETC., 'irrespectiv
of any general law of the state ol
this subject enacted by the legisla
,ture or the people at large" and tn
provision of the charters of Browns
vile, Halsey and Junction City, CIV
ing those cities power to license, etc
Subject to the provisions of tn
local option liquor law"
In determining the question as t
whether a later act repeals a forme
act, Judge Bean lays down this rul
in re Booths will Gao Ore. 154, an
cited with approval in Sandys vs.
Williams, 46 Ore. 327): ut is there
fore the duty OF the court to adop
any reasonable construction tha
will give effect to both acts, and 1
order that one may have the effeC
Of repeating another by Implication
Its conflict with the former act mus
be so positive as to be irreconcilabl
by any fair, strict, or liberal col
struction OF Il which would, withou
destroying It's evident intent an
meaning, find for It o reasonabl
field for operation, preserving at tn
same time the force OF the earle
law and constituting both together |
CONTINUED on Page SKI