Case Name: STATE v. HEARN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1911-05-31
Citations: 59 Or. 227
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. HEARN.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett : I concur in the result.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 227–235

Head Matter:
Argued May 23,
decided May 31,
rehearing denied July 11, 1911.
STATE v. HEARN.
[115 Pac. 1066: 117 Pac. 412.]
Constitutional Law — Operation as to. Laws Previously in Force —Local Option.
1. Section 2, Article XI, of the Constitution of Oregon (p. 23, L. O. L.), as amended Nov. S, 1910, provides that the legislature shall not amend any municipal charter, but that the voters of every city and town are granted power to amend their charter, subject to the constitution and criminal laws of the State, and that the exclusive power to license or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors therein is vested in such municipality, except that it shall within its limits be subject to the provisions of the local option law of the State. Held, that the county court having been retained by the amendment as the agency, and authorized to put into or out of operation orders of prohibition, or to maintain an interdiction of the sale of intoxicating liquors in an incorporated city or town, the amendment did not so affect any part of the local option law as to require a saving clause to preserve the right to punish a violation of such act committed prior to the amendment.
Intoxicating Liquors — Local Option Law — Repeal.
2. Where the local option law was in force in the whole county, a subsequent majority vote against prohibition in a district within the county did not have the effect to entirely repeal the local option law in such district.
Constitutional Law — Construction of Constitution — Contradictory Provisions.
3. Provisions of a constitution which appear inconsistent with other provisions will be interpreted so as to give effect to each as far as possible.
Intoxicating Liquors — Right of State to Regulate — Delegation of Power.
4. The authority to sell intoxicating liquors is a special privilege which the State, under its police power, may grant or deny, and this power may be employed directly by the State or delegated to municipal corporations, and when so delegated such corporations may use the power as specified in the enactment conferring the authority; but the police power cannot be bargained away by the State in such a manner as to place it beyond recall.
Intoxicating Liquors — Constitutional Provisions — “Exclusive/-'
5. An amendment to Section 2, Article XI, of the Constitution of Oregon, provides that the exclusive power to license or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors within a municipality, is vested in such municipality, subject to the provsions of the local option law of the State. Reíd, that the word “exclusive” means that a municipality shall, until otherwise ordered, be the sole agent of the State in exercising the police power, and construed in that way the amendment is valid, as the right of the State to recall the power delegated remains intact, and the amendment does not trench on a republican form of government, guaranteed by Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution of the United States, nor encroach upon the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the powers of the State, under Section 9, Article I.
From Josephine: Frank M. Calkins, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Moore.
The defendant, Dan Hearn, was indicted for the crime of selling intoxicating liquor, committed in Josephine County, October 29, 1910, in violation of the local option law, which, it is averred, was then in force in the entire county. A plea of not guilty having' been interposed, the cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts, in substance that at local option elections regularly held in that county as a whole June 6, 1908, and November 10, 1910, a majority of all the votes, respectively cast, were for prohibition and orders to that effect were duly made; that at such elections a majority of the votes given in South Grants Pass precinct, a division of that county, was against prohibition; that no other election for that purpose was ever held in that precinct; and that defendant sold intoxicating liquor in the corporate limits of the City of Grants Pass, within such precinct, on the day and to the person specified in the formal charge. Based on such stipulation, the court was requested to direct a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that the amendment of Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution of Oregon, which was ratified November 8, 1910, repealed the local option law so far as it was applicable to the City of Grants Pass. The request was denied, and the defendant, having been found guilty as charged, appeals from the sentence which followed.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Smith & Beckwith, with an oral argument by Mr. Robert G. Smith.
For the State there was a brief and oral arguments by Mr. B. F. Mulkey, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mr. H. D. Norton.
There was also a brief by Mr. A. King Wilson, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is maintained that the amendment referred to impliedly repealed that part of the local option law which made an entire county the maximum limit of prohibition, thereby excluding from such territory all incorporated cities and towns therein, and that as the alteration in the constitution contained no provision whereby violations of the prohibition law committed within the limits of such municipality prior to the adoption of the amendment were saved from the effect thereof, errors were committed in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty and in giving the judgment, which is brought up for review. The altered section of the organic act now reads as follows:
"Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by the legislative assembly by special laws. The legislative assembly shall not enact, amend, or repeal any charter or act of incorporation for any municipality, city or town. The legal voters of every city and town are hereby granted power to enact and amend their municipal charter, subject to the constitution and criminal laws of the State of Oregon (and the exclusive power to license, regulate, control, or to suppress or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors therein is vested in such municipality; but such municipality shall within its limits be subject to the provisions of the local option law of the State of Oregon)." L. O. L. p. 25.
The parts included within parenthesis as above noted were added pursuant to an exercise of the initiative power.
That certain provisions of the local option law were impliedly repealed and other clauses thereof were amended in the same manner has already been determined in construing the alteration of the organic act under consideration. State v. Schuler, 59 Or. 18 (115 Pac. 1057). It is believed that, while some provisions of the amended section of the constitution are self-executing, others require legislation to render them efficient with respect to precincts which lie partially within and partially without an incorporated city or town, so as to make the conflicting boundaries of such precincts conform to the limits of the municipality. The amended section separates from a county incorporated cities and towns, rendering all wards and precincts wholly within such municipalities generally independent of the remaining territory in all respects except as to pre-existing orders of prohibition which were applicable to the entire county, and such orders can be abrogated only by a majority vote of the qualified electors residing in the city or town, given against prohibition at an election called for that purpose by the county court. Where pre-existing orders of prohibition dominate a city or town, the same agency now supervises such elections as managed them before the fundamental law was changed. If no order of prohibition governs such municipality, it has "exclusive power to license, regulate, control or to suppress or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors therein." The county court having been thus retained by the amendment as the agency and authorized to put into or out of operation orders of prohibition, or to maintain an interdiction of the sale of intoxicating liquors in an incorporated city or town, that alteration of the organic act did not in our opinion so repeal or amend any part of the local option law as to require a saving clause to preserve the right to punish a violation of that.enactment committed prior to November 8, 1910.
In support of the principle asserted by defendant's counsel, he calls attention in his brief to the doctrine announced in Texas, which seems to sustain his view. In that State under a local option law somewhat similar in its provisions to the Oregon statute on that subject, it was held that after the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited pursuant to an election in any specified district, a majority vote of the qualified electors of the territory cast at a subsequent election repealed the local option law in the district, and, as such enactment contained no saving clause, violations of its provisions committed prior to the change of the order of prohibition could not be thereafter punished. Halfin v. State, 5 Tex. App. 212; Wisenhunt v. State, 18 Tex. App. 491; Woodlief v. State, 21 Tex. App. 412 (2 S. W. 812).
We cannot assent to the principle thus declared, nor do we believe that a majority vote against prohibition in a district where an order was in force, interdicting the sale of intoxicating liquors, repealed a legislative act. Prior to the amendment of the constitution, intoxicating liquors could be sold at times by persons who had secured a license for that purpose, and there were other occasions when no legal license could be issued.
Defendant's counsel assigns various reasons illustrating his theory of the case, but, as most of these questions were determined in the case of State v. Schuler, 59 Or. 18, (115 Pac. 1057), and others are deemed immaterial, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burnett : I concur in the result.