Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-09-26
sJ0Y OF RICHMOND CLUBS
Il PROVES sHOR7-L|VED
Tennessee Decision on Locker Law
Holds Little Encouragement
~ for ISibuluuS.
ACT TECHNICALLY DEFECTIVE
Supreme Court Held Statute to BE
=, CncOnStitutionnl. Because II Con-
tanned Other Provisions Not Set
Forth in Title.

The JOY Of Richmond clubdom. which
received with Il wicked lecr the news
that the Supreme Court of Tennessee
has held the locker law uncouStitu-
tional. and saw in fond prospect q
like fate lying in wait for the locker
section in the Virginia Law. has suf
Tered q sharp revision downward.
The teleSraphic reports OF the Ten
nesscc courts ruling brought the bare
information that the locker provision
had been held unconstitutional. An
abstract from the opinion which reach
ed Richmond yesterday. shows ttTat the
court declared Unconstitutional the act
OF which the locker provision was Il
part, on the ground that the bill con-
tanned y subject not at all expressed
in its title. thereby violating Article
IL, section II nj the Tennessee Con
s,itut:ou which declares that "no bill
shall become law which cmhra CO 8
moro than ON. subject, that subject
TO be EXPRESSED ir The title"
ACT WEHT RI nTHER THAN
SET FORTH IN ITS TITLI:
10 II was held hv the court that while
tho title Of the act In question Only
Indicated 4 purpose 10 prohibit The
pra ctice OF social clubs in keeping in
toSicating liquors on the premises for
distribution or disposition among their
guests and members. the body Of the
act went further and prohibited amy
individual from keeping or receiving
liquors at any place. at his homo or
office or any other place. whether on
the premises OF The club or not, re-
Eardless of whether the liquors were
intended for distribution or for the
personal use OF the Individual.
Tho Tennessee court made no attempt
TO pass on tho question of whether the
Legislature could constitutionally.
al,riI itIi x-il, &C rier1t
ccivc, keep or use liquor at his home
or office. rs this act undertakes to do,
even If the title OF such an act were
properly drawn. but confined itself 10
throwing out tho statute solely he
cause il went beyond the purpose en-
pressed in tho title
DID NOT PASS ON
QUESTION or LOCKERS
Thus. i; appears. the Supreme Court
u. Tennessee III 80 way passed on the
provision prohibiting the keeping Of
liquors in club lockers. Luckily for
the Tennessee clubs that are loath 10
give up the locker privilege. the lock-
er provision was itself part Of an act
held by tho court TO be technically de
fcctivc. The next Legislature will
have an opportunity OF correcting III.
title. and the locker question will then
probably again be Irrigated. this time
OH It's own merits
The Constitution OF Virginia provides
that mo law shall embrace more than
one object, which shall he expressed
In its title" Except for the suhstitu-
ton Of the word subject" for OBJ
ject.' the Tennessee provision is prac
tically Identical with it. The fact that
the title of the Mapp prohibition bill.
now chapter l45, Acts Of Assembly
1915, contains no reference 10 the pro
hibition OF the Keeping or use OF iiq
ucrs In club lockers which occurs in
section 10 Of the act. 10 follow the
lead OF the supreme Court OF Tonnes
sec, opens UP the question Of the con-
siitutionality Of the whole prohibition
statute.
Since the probability Of the Mapp
bill being thrown out as unConstitu-
tionnl on the grounds indicated is fully
as remote as world wide peace. every
day, speaking liquidly. viii too sunday
NJ the Richmond clubs after November