The Alaska daily empire., 1914-11-06

DRY LAW EFFECTIVE
 THIRD OF DECE8IB ER
 That prohibitions win become enec- fective In the State of Washington December 8 is the opinion of D, C.l Hughes. senior member of inc big Se- attle law firm of Hughes McMioken, l Doven and Ramsay This is also thei opinion Of Frederick Bausman, of the equally prominent Seattle law firm of Bausman, Keihher, oldham and Good all.
 Intended to Give saloons One Year.
 The opinion Of these lawyers is in l face Of Che direct provision in the in- itiatiYe statute that was approved oy the people last Tuesday that it should become effective January i, 1916. Tho' provision, according to Mir. Hughes and Mir. BQusni2n, Is In conflict with che initiative and referendum amend- ment of the constitution which pro vides that all acts submitted to the people and approved by them shall be come effective 30 days after their ap- proyal.
 Law Might Have Been Drawn Differ
 entiy.
 If the statute which was submitted to Che people had been drawn so as to provide in direct terms, for instance, Chat on and after January l, 1916, 1t shall be unlawful, etc, lt would have been efectiye in the manner that itI was Intended to be. and there would be no question about the saloons be ing entitled 10 operate for another year. instead of being drawn in that way, however, the provisions were in the present tense and Q provision was tackled onto tho bin providing that "this act shall be in full force and ef- feet from and after the first day of January 1sf6.
 Saloons May Not Close at Once.
 It is not believed. however that the saloons win close December Sd, fir respective of what the law may really l provide There is believed to be enough uncertainty about the manner in which the law will be interpreted to provide ground for hard legal con test. and there is little doubt but that the supreme court win be given an opportunity to rule on the questions involved. In the meantime, 1t is be- Heyed. the saloons will remain open.
 Hughes Letter.
 Ms Hughes opinion is set out in 1 letter to the Seattle Times. It covers several other matters in connection 1 with the adoption of prohibition in Washington. and sheds a great deal of light on the operation Of the initiative and referendum in that State. and in- terest in the whole situation gives it news and educational value. The let 1 ter follows:
 Editor The Times; You ask my opin- ion as to when Initiative Measure No. l S@ Statewide prohibition law) will take effect if adopted at the forthcom- ing election by the required vote of the electors
 The power to initiate and to enact laws by the vote Of the people is 8 1 legislative power reserved by amend ! ment to our State constitution adopted by the qualified electors of the state at the general election held in 1912. By this constitutional amendment 1t ls provided that Any measure initiated | by the people as herein pro yided shall take effect and become the law if 1t is approved by majority of the votes cast thereon: Provided, that the vote cast upon such question or measure shall equal one.third of the total votes cast at such election and | not otherwise"
 It thus appears that a minority oil the people Of the State may by direct l vote enact a law to govern all the people of the State
 must Conform 10 Constitution.
 Such law, however, in order to be valid, must conform to the provisions Of tue amendment to the constitution | from which the power to enact is del rived The proposed Initiative Meas ure No 31 declares in Section % that i'This act shall be in full ! force and effect from and after the first day Of January 1916" But the constitutional amendment, by which 1 the power to enact this law is reserved ! to the people. declares: "Such measure | shall be in operation on and after the thirtieth day after the election at which it is approved"
 This language is plain and unam- i biguous, and concerning it there would ! appear to be no room left for con. struction. The general rule of inter pretation of statutory and constitu- tional provisions has been well de- clared by our own Supreme Court as follows:
 Words in common use are to be considered in their plain and ordinary | sifnifcation; and so long as the lan- guage used is unambiguous, Q depart | ture rom such plain meaning is noti justified by any consideration of con.l sequences or public policy"
 Cannot Override Organic Law
 No provision of the initiative act can override the plain mandatory pro visions of the constitution. Since the provisions Of Section S3 of the act are