Evening journal., 1917-07-25
WET AND DRY LEGAL
FIGHT Nearing END
lcontlnned from Page ono

drawn after the law passed, what dif-
ference does Il make I'm this case?'
Mr.. Harman replied. III say
none. it leaves the way open for the
other side to argue that the law was
passed. not on the petition, but on the
discretion Of the Legislature and
therefore the Legislature could fix a
day other than a general election day
for the election"
He contended then that the petition
I'm the Legislature could not be with
drawn.
Attorney Harman then took up the
question from the standpoint OF the
city being included in the law.
At the conclusion OF Attorney Har-
mans argument. Mr. Eastburn ad-
dressed the court in opposition to the
/ petition for q writ OF mandamus.
Mr. Eastburn this morning opened
| his attack in defense Of the law by
ridiculing the claims Of the 'wets"
! that no special apartment or cleo
tlons exists because the vets failed
/ 10 provide the Governor with nomi-
ness for the board. He claimed that
the "wets" had the chance 10 submit
]
of their prccOnceived plan to attack
the consututionality OF the law. He
/ contended that the provision for the
Governor to name the board was dis
cretionary and not mandatory. lie
: charged the failure of the vets 10
provide the Governor with names for
the special election board TO be a
corrupt scheme 10 defeat the prOv-
sions for the special election. and that
II the court upholds the contention Of
the "wets." then the "wets" will be
given power TO veto the intention Of
the Legislature.
Following Mr. Eastburn Attorney
| Caleb T. Burchenal took up the
| argument and insisted that the con-
! tentiOn Of the VETS that the subject
matter OF the statute was not set
| forth IN the title was not correct. He
insisted that the sections Of the law
/ providing for a special election, the
special registration and the creation
OF a special Department Of Elections.
form one subiec. matter and not
three separate ones as cOntended by
the "wets."
He followed the argument OF his
colleague on the refusal OF James
Kane and Timothy Mooney 10 serve
as the "wet'' members OF the Special
Department of Elections. claiming IL
was an attempt by the "weis" 20 de-
feat the law. He closed his argument
with the statement mat the time IS
past when technicalities VIII be
allowed TO stand In law and charged
that the "wets" are not making a
legal defense but are trying 10 avade
the laws demand on mere technicali-
ties.
AS he finished his argument. former
Federal Judge George Gray entered
the court room and was invited by
Chief Justice Pennewil 10 take a
place with the court and the for
mer Justice took a place on tho
. bench
Mr.. Richards. making the first ar
gument I'm rebuttal, denied that the
"wets' have resorted to technicai-
- ties to defeat the law and then took
b. up the proposition that so far as WI
r mington Is concerned the law is un-
D constitutional. He admitted that
b even II the refusal OF the "wets" "a
present names to the governor or ac-
3 cept places on the board is startling
d or shocking. nevertheless the law Is
to blame If il makes such a condition
possible. He said that the "wets"
are not attacking the actions Of the
special board, but that the "wets"
are attacking the creation Of the
board by the governor as beng
void. on the ground that II was man
datory for him to name the board
from names submitted by VETS
and "drys" and If the "wets" sub
mitted no names. then the governor
could not supply such names. He
, pointed out that the governor had no
power under the law 10 select men
, when no list was submitted. than he
had 10 go outside the city of Whining
/ ton 10 select the members OF the
, board
Continuing his argument Attor-
nev Richards contended that the
position Of the "drys" that the three
members who accepted positions as
members Of the election board gave
, the board legal standing was not
sound. for the reason heretofore
given namely, that there was nc
hoard for them 20 be members or
D, for the reason that the board was not
z properly created by the governor. The
S failure Of the legislature, he SAID "a
e provide means Of naming the wet
@ members when no lists we're SUB
g mitted. makes the law void and TINS
q omission cannot be corrected by luai
j. cal legislation, but the remedy mus
# come from the legislature.
d The closing argument in the tnre'
, dava' hearing was started at l2.S'
n o'clock. by Herbert II. Ward %
o counsel for the wet forces, wh'
?. took up the question of the title to tn'
IS act providing for the election. MT
Ward contended that there are thre' '.
. distinct subjects covered by the aet
namely. a special election on the II
cense question. the provision TOT az
entire new registration system 10
n that election and the creation Or Ii
Y snecial and new department OF eiec
n tions in the city Of wilmington
= MIR. Ward will conclude his argu
ment this afternoon.
? MRS. ONEILL A WAR BRIDE.
)S A war bride Of yesterday mornln
,,-as Mics Rose Rodgers. OF NO. ou