The daily Alaskan., 1915-12-23
SUPREME COURT
 0N PROHIBITION
lC0Dtinued rom page I.J

unable to agree with tue mAlUTI,y
 in the reasons upon which some or
 tue questions discussed are treated
 although he is content with the
 conclusion finally reached, and
 would concur in the result.
 rhe legal tight to secure a per
 maueut injunction against the en- Iorcement of the prohibition law, which was submitted to the people at the election last fall and which was carried by Q suOstantiaI ma JOrily, was started before Supeuor Judge D. k. Wright or the ThurstoD county superior court last June on luc petition of the M. ana k. Gott- stein company liquor dealers or Seattle, Three points were touched upon by the petitioner namely, the gonstiLuuOnality and validity Of the iniatiYe and referendum amendment to the constitution, Don-Ob5erVaDce of the mandatory provisions regulating operations or
 initiative propositions, and that rights ol certain classes under the federal constitution are invaded, In he first it was contended by coun- seI tor the plaintiff that the tnitia- tive and referendum amendment to the state constitution was never adopted though voted upon by the people,
 The required publication in every county before voting upon the pro position, it was argued had been done in only one county; in other counties the publication had been omitted ill parts, the omission vary l ing in the counties. Where the constitutional amendment has not been published as required by eX- isUilg constitution therefore, the am,ld -ent was not legally adopted, gu" it was up to tho proponents, the counsel contended, to see that lproper publication was served The fact that the amendment was uo- properly published was re- ueuted in the vote, it was held. It was pointed out that out of every | IvO persons who went to the polls n 1912, 33 voted yes on the amend men. IS voted no and 54 declined Co vote, from which it was figured .hat 67 per cent voted against or were indifferent. Although it may Do assumed argued the petitioner, i that the constitution has been amended by the incorporation of the initiative and referendum amend meut. that amondmen- provides specifically that the measure shall be printed and mailed by the sec retAry of state at least 50 days be fore tho election, provision which it was claimed, was not compiled with. It was shown that on the in itiatiye measure No. 8, the pronl- bitioG measure, the first pamphlets were sent out 26 days before cleo ton and last pamphlets 15 days before election, giving the voters aE average of 20 l~2 days delibera- tion.
 l Another provision of the cOnstitu- tiou was pointed to where it de- clares that all the provisions of the constitution are mandatory, which means, 1t was argued that if certain provisions are not com piled with the proceedings ip Ques- tiOu become void.
 The constitiutionality of the la" was upheld in the decision handed down July 25 by Superior Judge 1 Wright who held that the relief Iprayed for is not within the power | uf the court to grant, regardless l Of whether or not the constitutional land statutory steps relative tC Isubmitting the measure were com IpIied with, and also regardless ol whether the said provisions are mandatory or directory, especially 50, now that the election is over an the people have actually expressed themselves on the measure"
 In September the Olympia Brew ling company injected a new angl' l into the fight by filing suit in the
 superior court, declaring that the
 vote cast for and against the pro
 bibitlon measure in 1914 did no
 amount to one-thiird of the tota votes cast in the election or t( one-third of the votes cast fo'