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

cisely the same initiative process and
/ the people cannot presume to say one
thing in one instrument and directly
the opposite in the other. Such a re-
suit should be indicated by unmis-
taxable terms or be supported by the
/ clearest necessary implication or be
discarded as unsound.
Moreover, in the decision of ques-
tions about a supposed conflict be-
/ tween a statute and a constitution, in
which, of course, the former must
yield. courts will not declare the stat
ute unconstitutional unless the two
are palpably antagonistic. every doubt
/ being solved and every intendment be
ing given in favor of the statute.
This rule is sustained by an unbroken
| line of decisions of this court from
Cline VS.. Greenwood, 10 Or, 230,
through Cook V. Port of Portland, 20
Or, $50; State V. Shaw, % Or. 2S7;
Simon v. Northrup, 27 Or, 4S7, and
other cases down to State V. Cochran,
105 Poe, SS4, in which the very exist
ence of this court as at present con-
stituted was upheld by the applica-
ton of this seif-same principle of con-
struction.
Again, "the rule of statutory con-
struction is a familiar one, that all
acts relating to the same 'bject are
in pari mater'a and are to be con-
strued as though their several pro-
visions were incorporated together
and constituted one entire act.
Equally we'll settled in another rule
Of construction and that is that ev-
cry word in statute must be given
its proper meaning and effect, If pos
sible. And our code, L. o. L., sec
ton 715, declares another rule quite
as important and salutary, as fol-
lows. In the construction of a
statute or instrument, the Office of
the judge is simply to ascertain and
declare what is. in terms or In sub
stance, contained therein. not to in
sert what has been omitted, or to
omit what has been inserted; and
where there are several provisions
or particulars, such construction is,
If possible, to be adopted, as will
give effect to ALL" Justice Strahan
in Miller v. Tobin. 16 Or. 540-556
The citadel of the defense here is
based upon the clause; and the eX-
elusive power to license, regulate,
control or to suppress or prohibit
the sale of intoxicating liquors there
in is vested in such municipality"
An outwOrk of this citadel depends
upon the words: within its limits. "
in the succeeding clause. the conclu-
sion sought to be deduced being that
although the local option law was
hitherto a valid, living force through
out the state at large, yet by virtue
of these words when it comes to a
city boundary the law is shoTn OF
its sanction as a state law and with
in the limits of the town because of
municipal regulation. These posi-
tions ignore the remainder of the
section. 1.-THE exclusive power
mentioned means nothing more than
was already vested in every corpor-
ate city or town by the section under
examination prior to the amendment
of 1910. The people. by mandatory
language, had forbidden the legisla-
tive assembly to meddle in any way
with municipal charters, and had
delegated that class of legislation to
'the legal voters of every city and
town subject to the constitu-
tional and criminal laws of the state
Of Oregon" The city of Coquille at
tempted within it's limits" to legis-
late in its own way and amend its
charter on the subject in question
here, and this court in Baxter "
State, supra, overturned the amend
ment of the charter saying, in sub
stance, to the municipality: Your
legislation Is void because it is in
conflict with certain criminal law
of the state, to which law you are
subject, namely, the local option
law" But for the clause making
them Subject to the constitution and
criminal laws of the state" the legal
voters of that city had as Exclusive
power as could be conferred upon
them, and there was nothing superior
: to them except the inherent power OF
: the people, which is declared in the
first section of the constitution, and
which is now and always has been
the ultimate force pervading and up
holding the government. Under these
conditions, alike on principle'to those
now before us, this court in the BaX-
ter case defined what it meant for a
municipality to be Subject to the
constitution and criminal laws of the
. state The substance of the defini-
tion is that the criminal laws of the
state, including this particular local
option law, in all its parts, have un-
diminished authority over every city
: or town, even within its limits
Notwithstanding the municipality
= otherwise exclusive power" The
words thus construed and applied as
limitation upon exclusive power
existing then as much as now are re-
tanned in their former position in the
revised section and upon the prin.
ciple of stare decisis, If for no Other
reason, should have the same force
as they had before.
, The words "within its limits" dc
not change the conditions in exist
ence before the revision of 1910
They can only serve to intensity
what has already been said in gener
al terms that city boundaries pre-
sent no obstacle to the supremacy OF
the criminal laws of the state ovei
any internal regulation of munich
pality. Where .elNe than within in
its limits" could city be subject tc
either the constitution or any crimin.
al law of the state? The city oi
: Joseph is not subject to any law II
! Grant county or Jackson county. be.
cause the city does not exist there
Neither is 1t subject to any law out
side of It's limits even in Wallowe
county, for the same reason. Local.
ity Is the essence of municipal exist.