The Lynden tribune. [volume] (Lynden, Wash.) 1908-current, 1914-10-29
INITIATED Law IS
CONSTITUTIONAL
Legal Opinion Of a Dentist
Is Not Shared BY
Lawyers

matter declare that there Ia NO foun-
dalton for the report that the initia.
tive measure No. 3. known as the pro-
hibition bill, violates the constitution.
al provision a. to the time of taking
effect.
The constitution provides that the
measures passed by the people shall
take effect 60 days from passage. The
prohibition measure itself provides
that its provisions shall not be en-
forceabls until January /. 1915. The
attorneys declare that the bill would
itself become part of the law Of the
state In the constitutional time. but
that its enforcement would be limited.
1t now develops that the contrary
legal opinion exploited by the liquor
operators was not written by law
yer at all but was actually written by
q reporter for the Seattle Times while
he was tipsy and was put out as the
opinion of dentist of Tacoma.
Not any lawyer has yet been found
who would risk his reputation by CIV
ing that sort Of an opinion. To set
the matter at rest, the dry leaders Of
Seattle sought the advice Of half a
dozen of the best lawyers of Seattle
and they were of the unanimous opin-
ion that the law would 60 into effect
II approved. on January 1. 1916, as
stated in the bill. The following as
surance is given out by the drys:
A Statement.
A statement has been industriously
circulated by some Of the newspapers
Of the state to the effect that Initia-
tive Measure No. 8. commonly known
as the proposed prohibition law. II
adopted. would 90 into effect and be-
como completely operative within
thirty days after the election. notwith-
standing the explicit terms Of the law,
which provide for its operation on and
after January first, 1916.
This statement was apparently bas-
cd upon the wording Of the constitu-
tiOnal amendment. providing for the
initiative. No legal opinion has been
furnished or authority cited for this
construction, and 1t stands unsupport-
ed. except by the opinion Of Doctor
Carlyon "a dentist), Of Olympia.
The Committee have consulted a
number Of prominent attorneys of the
city of Seattle, and are advised that
the thirty-day period given should.
and no doubt will be. construed by the
courts as a minimum period of time
which must elapse before the law be-
comes operative, and not as an arbi-
traryi. provision that all initiative
measures. regardless of the subject
dealt with or the necessities covered
feet in thirty days: in fact, to SO hold
would be q very narrow construction,
largely limiting the uses of the initia-
tive. and restricting its usefulness.
The courts, in the construction Of
statutes. give effect wherever posi-
Bile, to the intent Of the legislature.
and the intent Is so clearly expressed
in this act. In spcific language. that
the courts WILL. without doubt. give
effect to the plain and obvious mean
Ing Of the law. Tho thirty-day period,
in the constitution. was undoubtedly
intended to fix a time for the opera
ton of the law when no time was fixed
by the law. This law fixes the time
at January first, 1916.
1t is the unanimous opinion of the
eminent and able attorneys who have
been consulted upon the question that
this is the time at which the law goes
into effect.
STATEWIDE PROHIBITION COM.
MITTEE.
BY L. e. Kirkpatrick, President.