Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1911-01-27
DECIDES ELECTION ILLEGAL
CONTINUED from Page one.)

harmony with the whole course o
legislation on the subject" justice
Moore, in sandys VS.. Williams, supra
says: "The rule In this state Is that
though repeals by implication are
not prohibited by the constitution
they are not favored in law, and art
not allowable, except where the In
consistency and repubnancy between
prior and a subsequent act on the
same subject are plain and unavold
able"
Tho same rules apply In the con
structIon Of constitutional amend
ments as apply In the construction oi
statutes, and repeals by implication
by constitutional amendments, as by
statutes, are not favored. Cyc. Vol
8, page 724 ct. seq: Cent. Dig. Vol
10, Sec. 81, Constitutional Law.
In constituting the home rule
amendment, we must keep In mind
that II Is general and must apply tC
every city IN the state, regardless OF
whether at the time Of Its appllca-
tion local option is in force In such
city or not; and must also, II pos
slble, give II such a construction as
win harmonic each clause OF II with
each other clause, and also harmon.
ize the whole with the laws and de.
cisions In force at the time Of It's
adoption, in order that no repeals
by implication may follow, unless
tine Inconsistency and repugnancy
are plain and unavoidable.
The purpose Of the law, as express
ed by It's promoters, Is: at in no
way annuls the effect Of the provi.
slons Of the local option law, as they
rotaIned In full force within the
corporate limits Of every city,
Estate Pamphlet page 75) The
amendment enacts into law the de-
cisIon OF the supreme court In Rem
shaw VS.. Lane county to the effect
that the local option law Is read in
to every municipal charter in the
state The same reasoning adopted
In Fouts VS., Hood River (46 Ore.
492) to the effect that the local
charters are not repealed, but sim
ply suspended during the operation
OF the local option law, will apply
with equal force In the construction
OF this amendment.
Here we have an amendment ap-
piled to all of the cities OF the state,
with their various forms Of char
ters, some under the operation of
the local option law, other not; with
a purpose Of rounding out and com
pleting the intent OF the constitution
and the initiative and referendum
and TO preserve the local option law"
Estate Pamphlet. page 75) and what
more harmonious and reasonable
construction can be given it than
that IL vests In the municipality the
exclusive power to license, etc, when
ever the people Of such municipality
shall elect to take control OF the
liquor traffic by proceeding accord
Ing to the provisions of the local op-
tion law, The construction contend
cd for by defendant would be unjust
to those cities wherein majority
were In favor Of prohibition to say
that their will is repealed and n
FREQ for all condition was inaugur-
ated, leaving II to councils In some
eases to the voters in others, and
n some cases requiring amendments
to their charters before any action
could be taken.
The reasonable construction seems
TO be that the amendment authorizes
the cities not under the local option
to adopt such measures as their
charters warrant, and cities under
the operation Of the local option law
to proceed under their terms and
provisions, taking the city as unit,
to vote on the subject as a unit or
by subdivisions or precincts OF that
unit, and at the times. places and in
the manner provided by the Local
option law.
In this ylow Of the case the de.
murrers win be overruled