The Sentinel=record., 1914-01-23


 to names on the remaining petitions was upon the demonstrators.
 Judge Sumpter made a stirring ar- gument against this ruling by the court, claiming until the petitioners had shown that the petition was per fect and ample in every manner, it was not up to the remonstrators 70 inquire into it, and urging that this the attorneys for he petitioners had not yet done,
 Judge Mooney made 8 final ruling on the subject, and stated that he would give the attorneys for he re monstrants an opportunity to put wit ncsses on the stand this morning at e.30 o'clock, bu that they must have the witnesses in court promptly and proceed without delay, as he was anx- ious to get t1c matter decided o.e way or another.
 At the outset of the case in the morning session Judge Sumpter of counsel for the remOnstrators filed separate remonstrance againss each and every application for license that had been made before the county court There were 2S in number and this point indicates that the appica- tions will be resisted along individual lines, as had been forcasted in former arguments by Judge Sumpter.
 Attorney Sawyer, of the counsel for the petitioners, then made a formal motion before the court asking Judge Mooney to reinstate the IA petitions which had been circulated by Bell and later thrown out, and setting up as his foundation for the motion the hard fact that you couId not abridgc a constitutional right hy an unconsti- tutional act of the legislature. This put squarely before the court the ques- tion of the cOnstitutionality of the Go ing act. MT. Sawyer also urged the reconsideration of the Vale petitions.
 "This is the court of every person in Garland county urged NJ. Sawyer The constitution gives every citizen the right of a hearing by petition, and it
 
 court to consider seriously any legis- lative act that might seek to deprive citizen of the constitu-ionaity Fight. Even an executive officer might be governed in his acts. The duty of every officer, whether judicial or eX- ecutive, is to to uphold the constitu- ton, and that is his first obligation"
 What I can't understand said Judge Mooney "was why the legisla tive committee of the state senate did not determine the constitutionality of this act
 MT. Sawyer, who was presenting the argument, had been a member of the judiciary committee of the senate. He explained that the matter had been argued but that a majority of the sen ate committee reported an approval of the act But this court should not consider itself bound" continued Ms. Sawyer "by what any iudicary com mittee did or failed to do"
 He continued the argument along this line. and said: Yes, was there We were all sap heads But this court is not subservient to the legis- latiye or judiciary committed" He argued that the right to sell liquor was a privilege, but the rieht to petit ion was guaranteed by the constitution and that the constitutional right of a citizen should be considered far more serious than a matter of whether liq uor shall be sold or not"
 Speaking of the sale of liquor MT Sawyer said that it seemed the priv ilege should be granted. "Gcd made it" he said.
 No God never made it" answered Judge SumpteT
 Wasn't it God who turned water into wine, and therefore offered the first intoXicants to the people? inquir- ed Mir. Sawyer of Judge Sumpter. I think the biblical student must have been rusty on his facts
 The answer to the arguments were made at length by Mr Mcconnell and Judge SumppteT., in which they cover ed the question and argued the court to make ruling on the original motion to suppress the petitions, that had been filed by Judge Sumpter, and par tially acted on by the court
 Judge Mooney later ruled that the attorneys for the petitioners would be given the opportunity to reopen their case and to offer the first Is circulars as provided by the Going act
 He did not make any ruling what ever on the constitutionality of the act letting that matter pass.
 
 CAAIM STORES RANkPLInr