Evening journal., 1917-08-01

and sale OF intoxicating liquor shall
be licensed or prohibited within the
limits thereof whenever a
majority Of all the members elected to /
each House Of the General Assembly /
by the qualified electors i'm any /
district named in Section of this /
Article shall request the submission
of the question Of license OF no license
to vote Of the qualified electors In |
said district, the General Assembly /
shall provide for the submission Of
each question to the qualified electors /
IN such district at the next general
election thereafter
THE Legislature. therefore, could
provide for an election in one or more
Of the local option districts Of the
State in either of two ways. viz: Upon
request or without request. Upon re-
quest being made. as provided by the
constitution, IL was unquestionably the
duty OF the Legislature TO provide Tor
an election IN that district, under the
/ mandatory clause, as was said by this
court in the Fountain case, Q Penn.
$40. But the court has no power to
compel the Legislature TO do some
thing they should have done and failed
to do.
1--WE are asked to compel the Legs
lature to act under the provision by
denying them the right to act upon thu
ether This the court is unable TO
do.
THE Legislature is a coordinate
and independent branch or department
Of the state government and its mem
bers are responsible TO the people and
mot 70 the court for any disregard or
} failure Of duty They had the power
as already said. to provide for an cleo
ton under either the mandatory OF
8 permissive provision OF the consttu-
: ton; and If the former was con-
tact between the State and the PEG
3 pie. as counsel for the petitioners con-
Z tend. the latter was equally so.
Q while. as we have said, II is uht
70 duty Of the Leg stature TO proceed
r. upon the mandatory provision when
n request Is presented. we can con
Q ceive that the members might preIel
q that the election should be held at az
earlier date than the next genera
70 election and finding that the two
n provisions are Identical except In thi
b. time for holding the election, con
i clude TO disregard the request an'
y pass the act under the permissive pro
h vision.
1t III is conceded that IL no reques
le had been presented the act as passe
r would be entirly constitutional ou
g. II is commended that because a requea
IA was presented which was wholly dls
regarded by the Legislature, the &C
f. is unconstitutional
al I'VE are not at all impressed wit
OF the soundness Of this argument.
We 1.-THE request that was presented
II material in this case only rs TAR as
NAV show upon which provision n
er Legislature acted in passing u
de statute. Was the submission mac
Iis upon the request or without regal
ed TO IL? II upon the request, then u
on vote had TO be taken at the gener
be election
ut saThe court Is Of the opinion tn
by the legislature not desiring TO co
or fine the election TO the local opti'
lp- district outside Of the local option a
Id trict embracing the city Of Wilmn
so tor. but to provide for an election
er. both districts acted under the ~
Of mfseive and not the Mandatory y
lti vision and had the right, thereto
ed, 10 provide for an election 20 be NJ
The at a time other than the general eli
IN ton.
The counsel for the petitioners ms
vas that under the construction OF
Constitution a Legislature may so
ion time provide for two elections in
ase same district at practically the sal
time. We will not assume that su
ler an unreasonable and absurd thing v
III be done
ne Couldn't withdraw Petition.
OF 'Much was said at the argum'
re- about the power Of the Legislature
act withdraw or permit the withdrawal
Iot- a request for submission. but we
in unable to see how such question
has he I'm any way material to this ca
the II As admitted that II the request
led withdraw IL was not done until al
or the act was passed; but so tar as
mower OF the Legislature TO pass
ac3 IS concerned il made po diuerel
ers whether the request was withdia
sti- or not While the right 10 withdi
,cts such a request is. in our Judsm'
uTt immaterial 10 the present case,
conrt thinks It proper TO say that q
are are clearly OF the opinion that II c
hat net be withdrawn In effect after
ued has been presented to and received
.ers the LEGISLATURE either by the menu
are signing it or by resolution Of the l.
and n h further claimed by the p
tno TONERS that the act having made
not lprovision for the choosing or apo
,,cb inc of the committees TO have cha
OF the campaign for and against
2 ~ cense. there could be no lawful G.
n M mittees. and therefor, any act done
VIII persons claiming to constitute
cas- committees are void:
GER eIn respect to this content
the which perhaps was not seriously III
ting or much relied upon. IL Is only ne
,ited sarv 10 say that for many years u
alec have been in this State parties
suh- were in favor OF license and pai
flied that were against license. They
Guild existed certainly since the hrst ]
tors option campaign. and have been y
the or less active ever since. The lt
egis- lature might very well assume
such parties would be organized
alton active in such an election as was
, the vided for and have committees
nat would submit lists Of names 70
initial governor as contemplated by the
nee Lists were submitted by commit
Ger claiming TO represent both partie
The the district of New Castle county
; re- side of Wilmington, and by a com
ment tee claiming 10 represent the
the AGAINST license In Wilmington. i
ncers Isl nothing TO indicate that such
Gees mittees were not authorized 10 II
on in sent the parties for whom they 81
RS of ed TO act, and the court VIII, q
= WDIn HII