Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-06-05

essdrlly follows that the power of a
municipal council to license the sale
OIL intoxicating liquors in any incor-
porated city or town, when suspend-
eu, could be revived by a majority
vote cast against prohibition.
Inc charter of Joseph, on Noyem-
per 3, 1910, when section 3 of article
IL OF the constitution of Oregon was
last amended. contained a clause del
egatlng to the council of that citv
power to license the sale of intovi.
catlhg liquors. No amendment of its
act OF incorporation was therefore
necessary and no alteration thereof
was undertaken. An ordinance was
enacted, however, January 8, 1911.
regulating the manner of licensing
the sale of intoxicating liquors in
the city, but this ordinance was
Dased upon an express grant of pow
en- heretofore delegated to the
council. An examination of section
OF article IL of the organic act. as
II existed prior to November 8. 1910.
VIII show that a municipal charter
could not be enacted or amended by
the legal voters of a city or town. so
as to violate the constitution or
criminal laws of Oregon. Baxter v.
State, 49 Or. 1853; L. o. L. p. 11S. The
criminal laws" thus referred to evil
IDENTIFY mean the entire collection of
general statutes in force in the
state, whether nahum in Sc or ma
lum prohibition. AS all felonies and
general misdemeanors are necessar-
lily comprehended in the phrase
criminal laws" as thus used. it was
undoubtedly difficult, without en-
ploying many qualifying terms, so to
change that clause of the fundamen-
tai law as to retain the Limitation
noted and yet to render the altera-
ton subservient to the local optiOn
law to which no express reference
had been made in the first amend
ment In formulating the last
change in the organic act prepara-
tory to its adoption, it was essential,
therefore, to allude particularly to
the local option law in order to in
corporate its general provisions in
the constitution, and in doing so the
restriction noted applies to one Grim
inal law, while the earlier limitation
referred to all general statutes of
that character The object of the
last amendment was manifestly to
forestall any law respecting the sale
OF intoxicating liquors, the operation
Of which might be made co-extensiye
with the boundaries of the state, and
also to take the limits of a munich
pality out of a county, or a subdivi-
sion thereof or precinct therein of
which it formed part and yet to
make the incorporated city or town
subject to the general provisions of
the existing local option law.
The reference in the first amend
ment of section of article II of the
constitution to the criminal laws"
of the state, and the allusion in the
last alteration of that section to the
local option law" are not, in our
opinion, so similar in their implica-
ton when construed together as to
render the latter attempted change
nugatory. The various provisions of
the altered section should be inter
preted in conjunction and effect
should be given to the entire Ian
guage employed, if possible, render
ing each word operative rather than
futile. In discussing this principle a
learned author says: "It is scarcely
conceivable that a case can arise
where court would be justified in
declaring any portion of a writer
constitution nugatory because of am.
biguity. One part may qualify an.
other so as to restrict its operation
or apply it otherwise than the nat
ural construction would require if il
stood by itself but one part is not
to be allowed to defeat another, if by
any reasonable construction the two
can be made to stand together.
Cool Con. Lin. (6th Ed 72.
The local option law, though enact
ed by the people under the initiative
power, is only a statute and since
the clause of the constitution was
amended by an exercise of the same
authority the prior act, like any 9th.
er law, is necessarily subject to ex.
press and implied modification anC
repeal. 1t is generally understood
that written constitution affords 8
guide to legislation and is therefore
of superior authority. Where, how.
ever, a reference is made in an or.
ganic act to a statute as furnishing
a rule Of action, what has been re-
garded as fundamental law is de.
prived of much of the inviolability
usually accorded either to a limita.
ton or grant of power. Authority
to amend the constitution is reserved
to the people of Oregon and this
right may be enforced by vote upor
an initiative petition. Const Or. Art
4, Sec. 1; Art. 5, Sec /. Under the
system now prevailing clause o.
the organic act appears to contro
only the legislative assembly, since
1t requires no more effort nor any
greater care to amend clause o
the constitution than it does to enact
alter or repeal a statute, for ma
jority vote is sufficient to give sane
ton to a bill, and no greater vote IL
required to amend the Fundamental
law. Id. Art II, Sec. l.
The general rule is that a liberia
construction should be given to legis
lative enactments because they ar,
often hastily drawn by persons un
skilled in the use of technical lega
expressions, are frequently conflict
ing. and sometimes trench upol
clauses of the organic law A stric
construction, however, is usually ap
piled to provisions of a constitution
on the ground that great care ha
been exercised by experienced per
sons in framing them. 6 A. & e. Enc
Law, I'D Ed 921; Wolcott v. Wig
ton, 7 Ind. A. AS a majority vote o
the qualified electors by an exercis
of the initiative power can enact
statute, they can, by giving such lay
an appropriate article and sectio
\ 81 Il