Bisbee daily review., 1915-02-18
COURT GAVE COMPLETE REVIEW
 LIQUOR TEST CASE

PHOENIX, Feb. 1.-The Supreme court of the State Of Arizona has handed down a decision in the Cher ma liquor test case which sustains the verdict of the superior court of Pima county
 The decision is a lengthy one and consists of twenty-four typewritten legal size pages.
 Briefly pafaphrased it is as fol- lows:
 After reciting the text of the law, the opinion says: We are of the opinion that by the terms of the amendment 1t is self-eXecuting. It de- nounces certain things and prescribes a penalty for doing them, or any of them. lt is as complete and full as most criminal statutes that defines crimes and prescribe penalties for their commission. But upon the hy- pothesis that it is selfeXecuung it seems Co be the contention of appel lant that its self-executing feature is suspended or postponed by virtue of Section thereof until a time when the legislature shall by appropriate legislation provide for the carrying into effect of this amendment. This construction nulliries section 9 which should not be permitted if possible. By it. it is provided that the amend. ment shall take effect on and be en- forced on and after the first day Of January, 1915 Neither section 9 pr section 8 should be cast aside as SO much 'deadwood'. It may be admitted that the language used in these sec tions, if literally interpreted. is ap- parently subject to the criticism of contradicting itself But the framer and the people who adopted the amendment must have inserted both sections with the clear vision of their separate purpose. The object sought was to stop the traffic in intoxicating beverages The qualified voters were clothed with the power to accomplish that object They not only announced the principle of prohibition, but en- tered the domain of legislation defin- ing the offense and prescribing pun ishment. and fixed a date when it should be enforced and in effect, to- wit, January st, 90. The purpose then of inserting in the amendment sec ton is evident It cannot be mis- taken. Ia means-just what it says l. e. that the amendment is in force on and after January l, 19l5.'
 The court in it's opinion omits for the sake of argument section 9 and considers the act as it would read with that part temporarily laid aside and then comes to the conclusion that sections J., and mean the same thing that section I and 9 mean. In other words it is held that the section providing for legislative enactment was practically unnecessary and that the declaration of a policy or prin- ciple in the constitution. in, and of itself. imposes a duty on the legisla- tue to provide the method and means of effectually carrying out the policy or principle. The court further holds that the amendment provides that the superior courts shall have iuisdiction of offenses in violation O fits provis- ions and that the place Of imprisun- inert is definitely fixed as the county jail.
 Whether or not the amendment is unconstitutional in that it interferes with interstate commerce, the opinion states, is not for the court to decide in this case. As to the contention that the law is confiscatory ,th ecourt holds that a license for the sale of liquor is no ia contract between au- thority, federal. state or municipal granting it, and that sue hlicenses is in effect a mere permit affording pro- lection to the holders against legal ad- verson for acts winch without it's sanction would be illegal and punish able Repeal of the law under which the granting of the license was au. thorlzed withdraws the protection giv en b ythe license from criminal in- ability for continuing in the business, says the opinion Whether the licenses is furnished a remedy by which he can recover the unused portion of the money paid for the license, or depre gfatf,r of tha sro Itta of efroIro ,f Ifrsfcr