The Mena weekly star., 1912-05-30
EFFORT TO STOP
STATEWIDE ACT
Temperance Workers Seek to En-
join Secretary Hodges From
Certifying NIeasure-Pres-
ent Laws in Jeopardy.

Little Rock, May 2s.-An action
has been instituted in the Pulaski
Circuit court to test the validity of
the proposed Statewide Prohibition
bill. which was initiated by the
Anti-Saloon League Of Arkansas.
Should il prove fatally deficient, its
promoters will be saved the further
expense of a campaign, and should
II be upheld by the courts, its adj
voeates may proceed with its elec-
tions with an assurance that it will
stand If adopted.
Rev. Frank Barrett, superintend-
ent of the Anti-Saloon League,
makes the following statement rel
ative to the suit:
1T is my understanding that the
injunction suit now pending in the
Circuit court against statewide pro-
hibiton has been instituted by
friends Of the bill with a view to
testing the legality as we'll as the
|constitutionaiity of the measure at
all points on which it might be at
tackled before or after It's election.
Since the validity Of the enabling
act, under which the statewide pro-
hibition bill was initiated, has been
denied in a recent ruling Of the
Circuit court there has been no
limit to the predictions made by
the friends and enemies Of the
statewide measure as to the prob
ability OF its being declared irreg-
ular, illegal OR unconstitutional at
any time before or after it's elec-
ton. The following questions seem
to be involved:
"First--If the Supreme court up
holds the ruling of Judge F'ulk and
thereby declares the enabling act
to be invalid, then is the initiation
OF the statewide bill valid without
any valid legislation providing for
the method Of its initiation?
t"Second--If the |. and r. amend
ment to the constitution il self
executing in its provisions for the
referendum clause, is ii also self
executing in its provisions for the
initiative, and who determines
whether or not the Initiative petit
tions were properly worded or
filed?
'Third-If the enabling act is de-
clared to be valid, then does the
provision in Section 3 OF that act
prohibit the initiation of a state.
wide prohibition bill? The provi-
sion reads as follows:
Provided this act shall not be
construed to allow the initiation of
any measure to set aside or revoke
any three-mile petition order made
by any Of the county courts of this
state prohibiting the sale of liquor
under Sections 5i28 to 5i32 of Kir-
bys Digest, or local option liquor
laws providing methods of deter
mining whether the sale Of intoxi-
eating liquors shall be prohibited
in any county, city, town or town
ship.
There are those who claim that
the local option liquor law of The
state is the law by which the ques-
tion is voted OH every two years to
determine whether or not liquor
shall be sold in any county, town
or township, and since the pro-
posed statewide bill nulliiies or
provokes that Law, it is therefore
prohibited by the above provision.
Fourth If the Supreme court
does uphold Judge Fulk's decision
and each town has the right to in
itiate and elect law TO provide for
the sale of liquor and thus nullify
the statewide law, will the state
wide law be worth the time, work
and expense that it will take to
elect it? AS to the legal points in
volyed in these questions, there
seems to be a wide difference of
opinion among lawyers, and prob
ably will continue to be until the
Supreme court has finally passed
upon them.
Where SO much is involved in
The various measures now pending
under the initiative and referendum
amendment, an immediate hearing
by the Supreme court will doubt
less save the people and the state
great deal Of money as we'll as
much litigation"