Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1903-1919 | View Entire Issue (June 5, 1911)
SUPREME COURT CONSTRUES THE HEW LOCAL OPTION LAW Holds That the Matter of Local Control Can Only Be Decided by a Vote Taken Since the Adoption of the Law, and An alyzes the Complicated Tangle Arising From the Conflict Between the Local Sections and the County as a Whole OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS . Fall Text Fubllihed by Courtesy of F. A. Turner, Reporter of the Supreme Court. DAILY CAPITAL JOCR.VAL, SALEM, OREGON, MQNuAr. ii; 5. 10H. Stale of Oregon v. Belli uer, Wallowa County. State of Oregon, respondent, v. E. T Schliier, appellant. Appeal from tlie circuit court for Wallowa county. Hon. J. w- Knowles Judge. Argued and submitted at Pendleton, May 2, 191 1. E- E- Coovert, for appellant. P g. lvanhoe, for respondent. Moore, J. Affirmed. The defendant, E. T. Schluer, was charg! with the crime of selling Intoxicating- liquor In Wallowa county, jarch 10, 1911, In violation of the local option law which, It Is alleged, was then In force In the entire coun ty. A plea of not guilty having been entered, the cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts In Bub stance that the city of Joseph Is duly Incorporated and by Its charter, which was In force November 8, litlO, and thereafter continued effec tive, is authorized to license the sale of Intoxicating liquors; that Joseph precinct includes such municipality and adjoining territory, about 90 per cent of the legal voters of which re side In the city;, that local option elections were regularly held in the entire county June 15, 1906, June 6, limx, and November 8, 1910, aivl a majority of all the votes cast having respectively been In favor of prohi bition, orders to that effect were duly made; that the ballots cast on that question In such precinct at the first election were 71 for prohibition and 57 against It, at the second, 122 ap proval the measure and 116 rejected It, and at the third, 91 favored the proposition and 165 opposed It; that no other prohibition election was ever held in such precinct or In the city; that on January 3, 1911, an or dinance was duly enacted whereby the sale of Intoxicating liquors was authorized by the city, pursuant to which a license was Issued to the defendant who, relying thereon, sold intoxicating liquor within the muni cipal limits at the time stated and to the person named In the charge. Based on such stipulation, defen dant's counsel requested the court to direct a verdict of not guilty, for that the local option law was not In force In the city of Joseph by reason of the amendment of section 2 of ar ticle 11 of the constitution of Oregon, ratified November 8, 1910, and that the license relied upon afforded a complete defense to the action. The request was refused and the jury instructed that the city, under the facts stated, was powerless to au thorize the sale of intoxicating li quors. The defendant, having been found guilty, appeals from the re sulting judgment. Moore, J.: The question to be considered Is whether or not the change of the organic law referred to relieved the city of Joseph from the order of prohibition In force In Wal lowa county as a whole so as to per mit the municipality, pursuant to its charter and an ordinance, to license the sale of Intoxicating liquors with in its limits when no local option election was ever held in the city alone but In a precinct that included such municipality. The altered sec tion is as follows: "Corporations may be formed un der general laws, but shall not be created by the legislative assembly by special laws. The legislative as sembly shall not enact, amend, or re peal any charter or act of Incorpor ation 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 i LJ All patent medicine or medicines ad vertlsed In this paper are for sale at DR. STONE'S Drug Store The only cash drug store in Oregon owes no one, and no one owes It; carries large stock; Its shelve, counters and show cases are loaded with drugs, medicines, notions, tol and criminal laws of their municipal charter, Bubject to the constitution and criminal laws of the state of Or egon (and the exclusive power to li cense, regulate, control, or to sup press or prohibit the sale of intoxi cating liquors therein is vested in such municipality; but such munici pality shall within Its limits be sub ject to the provisions of the local op tion law of the state of Oregon)" I- O. L. p. XXV. The change made November 8, 1910, consists In the ad dition of the words included within the parentheses above noted. The local option law referred to Is set forth In the code as Sees. 4920- mi, u u. L. By that act It devolves upon a county court, upon the re ceipt of a proper petition therefor, to order an election to be held in the entire district described in the appll- "" me territory which maybe Included therein Is an entire countv. or a subdivision thereof which onn. tains two or more contiguous pre cincts, or It may be composed of a single precinct "Such subdivision of a county or a precinct of a county, may embrace In its limits Incorpor ated towns and cities and portions thereof, or may consist of the whole or a portion of an Incorporated city or town, or may lie partially within and partially without an incorporated city or town." Id. Sec. 4920. Elections to determine whether or not the sale of Intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes Is to be pro hibited In any designated territory shall be held only on the first Tues day after the first Monday In Novem ber of any year. "The elections pro vided for by this act shall be held at the regular voting place or places within the proposed limits and by the judges and clerks of election ap pointed and qualified under the gen eral election laws of the state, or If held at the time of a city election, then within said city or town by the judges and clerks appointed and qualified under the charter of such incorporated city or town or under the laws of the state regulating such city or town election, and the re turns tfiereof shall be made in con formity with the provisions of said general election laws. If, under the provisions of this act, an election shall be demanded wholly or in part In any incorporated city or town or any ward or precinct therein, to be held at the time of the city or town election in a year In which there is no general election, then the county clerk shall notify the proper author ities of such city or town that such election has been demanded in order that such city or town authority may cause the official ballots to be pre pared in accordance with the pro visions of this act, and the city audi tor, or clerk, or recorder, as the case may be, shall make return to the county clerk of the vote for and against prohibition In the several precincts of said city or town, and thereafter said matter shall proceed as In the case of a general election." Id. Sec. 4922. If, at a local option election, a majority of all the votes cast in a county as a whole, or in a subdivi sion thereof, or in any precinct there in, is for prohibition, the county court must make an order declaring the result of the vote and absolutely prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes within the prescribed limit. "The county court shall issue an order of prohi bition for each and every subdivision as a whole voting 'for prohibition', notwithstanding the county as a whole voted against prohibition. Thereafter it shall be un lawful to sell or exchange or give away any intoxicating liquor within the territory Included in said prohi bition order except as in this law provided." Id. Sec. 4929. If any election shall have resulted In a majority vote for prohibition in any county as a whole, no election shall be held in such county upon that question before the day of the general election following. Id. Sec. 4931. "When such second election results against prohibition, the court shall enter an order setting aside the previous order enforcing prohibi tion." Id. Sec. 4932. "When prohi bition has been carried at an election held for the entire county, no elec tion on the question of prohibition shall be thereafter held in any sub division or precinct thereor until af ter prohibition has been defeated at a subsequent election for the same ,.nooi hpid fnr the entire county, in accordance with the provisions of this act; nor in any case where pro hibition has carried In any subdivi sion of any county shall an election on this question of prohibition be held thereafter in any PlH of such subdivision until prohibition has been defeated at a subsequent election held for such entire sub ,u,.ioin " Trt Sac. 4933. it la helleved that the foregoing 0nnQiii nf and excerpts from the local option law are sufficient to show the general scope and purpose of the act, so far as Involved herein. These provisions were renaereu m ,i.i h entire state June 6, 1904, under the Initiative power, and, let articles, wines and liquors of H!hv complying with the. terms pre kids for medicinal ourooses. Dr Ktone 1b a regular graduate in medi cine and has had many years of ex perience In the practice. Consulta tions are free. Prescriptions are tree, and only regular price for med icine. Dr. Stone can be found at his drug store, 8alem, Or., from 7 in the morning until 9 at Bight Oregtii. iild be nut in force In any designated territory, not exceeding the area'of a county. Hall v. Dunn. 52 Or. 475; Gay v. Eugene, 53 Or. 289 When such statute Is made ef fective in any Incorporated city or town by a majority vote cast at an Section regularly held, the , power delegated to the municipality to ?he municipality ;to license , th .sale of Intoxicating liquor ..... cirann 104 FaC. 71. B ftiaynew that law. after having been put Into "eu'lon ln, an? designated district. . . r.iucieu inoperative. It neo rlly follows that the power of a municipal council to license the sale ?' lnxietlnS liquors In any Incor porated city or town, when suspend- voie ,1 t be,revlved by a majority tote cast against prohibition. n .'.I ' whPn 8ectlon 2 of article U of the constitution of Oregon was last amended contained a clause del egating to the council of that city power to license the sale of intoxl ca Ing Iquofs. N0 amendment of Its act of incorporation was therefore necessary and no alteration thereof was undertaken. An ordinance was enacted, however, January 3, 1911 regulating the manner of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors In the city, but this ordinance was based upon an express grant of pow er, theretofore delegated to the council. An examination of section 2 of article 11 of the organic act. as it existed prior to November 8, 1910, will show that a municipal charter could not be enacted or amended by the legal voters of a city or town, so as to violate the constitution or criminal laws of Oregon. Baxter v State, 49 Or. 353; L. O. L. p. 118. The criminal laws" thus referred to evi dently mean the entire collection of general statutes in force In the state, whether malum in se or ma lum prohlibtlon. As all felonies and general misdemeanors are necessar ily comprehended In the phrase "criminal laws," as thus used, it was undoubtedly difficult, without em ploying many qualifying terms, so to change that clause of the fundamen tal law as to retain the limitation noted and yet to render the altera tion subservient to the local option law to which no express reference had been made in the first amend ment, in formulating the last change in the organic act prepara tory to Its adoption, it was essential, therefore, to allude particularly to the local option law in order to in corporate its general provisions In the constitution, and In doing so the restriction noted applies to one crim inal law, while the earlier limitation referred to all general statutes of that character. The object of the last amendment was manifestly to forestall any law respecting the sale of Intoxicating liquors, the operation of which might be made co-extenslve with the boundaries of the state, and also to take the limits of a munici pality out of a countv. or a miiiriivi- slon thereof or a precinct therein of wmcn it formed a part and yet to make the incorporated city or town subject to the general provisions of the existing local option law. The reference in the first amend ment of section 2 of article 11 of the constitution to the "criminal laws" of the state, and the allusion in the last alteration of that section to the "local option law," are not, In our opinion, so similar in their imnlica- tlon when construed together as to renuer the latter attempted change nugatory. The various provisions of the altered section should be inter preted in conjunction , and effect should be given to the entire lan guage employed, if possible, render ing each word operative rather than futile. In discussing this nrincinlea learned author says: "It is scarcely conceivable that a case can arise where a court would be justified in declaring any portion of a written constitution nugatory because of am biguity. One part may qualify an other so as to restrict Its operation, or apply It otherwise than the nat ural construction would require if it stood by Itself ;but one part Is not to be allowed to defeat another, If by any reasonable construction the two can be made to stand together." Cool. Con. LIm. (6th Ed.) 72. The local option law, though enact ed by the people under the Initiative power, is only a statute and since the clause of the constitution was amended by an exercise of the same authority the prior act, like any oth er law, Is necessarily subject to ex press and Implied modification and repeal. It Is generally understood that a written constitution affords a guide to legislation and Is therefore of superior authority. Where, how ever, a reference Is made In an or ganic act to a statute as furnishing a rule of action, what has been re garded as fundamental law is de prived of much of the inviolability usually accorded either to a limita tion or a grant of power. Authority to amend the constitution is reserved to the people of Oregon and this right may be enforced by a vote upon an Initiative petition. Const. Or. Art. 4, Sec. 1; Art. 5, Sec. 1. Under the system now prevailing a clause of the organic act appears to control only the legislative assembly, since It requires no more effort nor any greater care to amend a clause of the constitution than It does to enact, alter or repeal a statute, for a ma jority vote Is sufficient to give sanc tion to a bill, and no greater vote Is required to amend the fundamental law. Id. Art. 17, Sec. 1. The general rule Is that a liberal construction should be given to legis lative enactments because they are often hastily drawn by persons un skilled In the use of technical legal expressions, are frequently conflict ing, and sometimes trench upon clauses of the organic law. A strict construction, however, Is usually ap plied to provisions of a constitution, on the .ground that great care has been exercised by experienced per sons in framing them. 6 A. & E. Enc. Law. (2d Ed.) 921; Wolcott v. Wig- ton, 7 Ind. 44. As a majority vote of the qualified electors by an exercise of the Initiative power can enact a statute, they can, by giving such law an appropriate article and section and entitling It an amendment of the constitution, make It a part of the fundamental law and render the sup posed stability of the organic act subject to sudden and serious changes. It may well be doubted, therefore, if any alteration ln the constitution that has been inaugur ated by the initiative should be strict ly interpreted. Assuming, witnoui ueciuiug, uul the amendment referred to is en titled to no greater respect than an ordinary Btatute, and should be con strued as such with reference to the local option law, the rule is well set tled that repeals by Implication are nnt favored, unless the incompatibil ity between a prior and a subsequent act on the same suojeci i o hiijhi ent that both enactments cannot re- main in force, and that if the latter statute only modifies a prior law, the two must be Interpreted as one act. aonrtvH v. Williams. 46 Or. 327; Hall v Dunn. 52 Or. 574. Based on this Chicken Pot Pie The Chefs Favorite By Mrs. Janet McKenzie Hill, Editor of the Boston Cooking School Magazine Some folks think that only "colored lallles, can cook chicken", but atrial of thi9 famous chicken pot pie disproves that assertion. Every member of the family will thoroughly enjoy it. C Chlcksa f ot Ma, Baiu4 Dampllarfg One fowl cut in joints; cup flour, teaspoonulsalt; black pepper, Zcups flour, 3 lezvl teaspoonuls K C Baking Powder, teaspoonful salt; X cup shortening; milk or cream. Cover the fowl with boiling water and let simmer until tender, then remove to a baking dish. Mix the cup Bout, salt and black pepper with cold water to a smooth paste and use to thicken the broth. Remove the fat from the top of the broth if necessary before adding the thickening. Pour this gTavy over the fowl, until it is nearly covered, and re serve the rest to serve apart. Sift to gether the flour, baking powder and salt, three times; into this work the shorten ing and use cream or milk to make a dough, less stiff than for biscuits. Put this by spoonfuls over the fowl in the dish, which it should rest upon and completely cover'. Let bake about 35 minutes. When rotinz, tender chickens are scarce, this presents a moat satisfactory way of serving old fowls. Veal or lamb prepared in this maimer is more appetizing than when served as stew. Try this and the 89 other delicious recipes in the K C Cook's Book, a copy of which may be secured free by sending- the colored certificate packed In the 25-cent can of K C Baking Pow der to the Jaques Mro. Co., Chicago. rule the alteration should be con strued In connection with the local option law so as to give effect to the former and to interfere as little as possible with the latter, allowing both to remain operative as far as feasible. It will be remembered that exclu sive authority to license, regulate, control, suppress or prohibit the sale of Intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes by any voters who reside outside tho city limits. The amend ment, therefore, impliedly repeals so much of 'the local option law as per mits "registered voters of nny coun ty," to petition for a prohibition election ln the entire territory or to vote upon the question when any part of such district Is an Incorporat ed city or town, and also so much thereof as declares that the provi sions of that law are enforceable In any precinct that "may lie partially within and partially without an In corporated city or town." L O. I,. Sec. 4920. The change in the or ganic act Impliedly amends Sec. 4933, L. O. L., so as to allow an elec tion to be held on the question of prohibition in a ward or precinct of such municipality, notwithstanding p-oMibtion 1 is.ritu .n the ir.-.ire county, or In ; subdivision thereof t-ren the latter district embnees n pritinct wholly vithin an Insury.''. r.'tC city or town. The alteration in Shi' fundamental law divorces s.i,;li municipalities 'rom a county f which they form a part, so Ih'u l'ie remainder of the county and Inror pcated cities and towns the.-eia con- f.tiiute, ln effect; separate .mllti-nl entitles with respect to each other. (Tabor v. Lander, 94 Ky. 237, 242) in all of which the local option law may be put into operation in the same manner and to the same extent that it was formerly employed ln tire en tire county, In a subdivision thereof or ln a precinct therein. It is be lieved that the exclusive power to license or prohibit the sale of Intox icating liquors, which purports to be vested in Incorporated cities and towns, having been expressly made subject to the provisions of the local option law, the right thus granted to the municipality Is necessarily gov erned by all such provisions so far as applicable, requiring for Its en forcement, in changing an order for or against prohibition, that the petf tion therefor should be presented to the county court, which should order a nelection to be held to determine the question, notwithstanding the phrase, "within the limits" of the municipality is used in the amend-1 ment. In view of this conclusion It Is un necessary to determine whether or not the last alteration of trie organic act is self executing in that it does not require any legislation to carry the amendment Into effect. Long v. City of Portland, 53 Or. 92; Acme Co. v. sAtorla, 4!) Or. 520. A moment's reflection, however, will show that the fundamental law as changed may be difficult to apply or enforce In precincts situate partially within and partially without an Incorporated city or town. Precincts that are en tirely within or wholly without such a municipality will not be materially affected by the alteration. If a coun ty could be so divided that all its precincts formed a part of an Incor porated town, the amendment of the clause of the constitution would seem practically to disfranchise every le gal voter In the county from deter mining whether or not the sale of Intoxicating liquors should be pro hibited either in the county or In a municipality therein. The same re sult would necessarily follow as to precincts partially within and par tially without a city or town. The county court, It is true, could read just election precincts, making tneir boundaries conform to the limits of an Incorporated city or town. L. O. L. Sec. 3304. As no statute exists commanding an establishment of the boundaries of a precinct It Is doubt ful If a rearrangement of the limits thereof could well be enforced, and hence It would seem possible for a county court to defeat any attempt to change Its order, either for or against prohibition in precincts par tially within and partially without a city or town. Notwitnsianoing me nnsslhle conseanences Biigeested, we believe the amendment Is valid and for that reason is susceptible of be ing under the restrictions Indicated Giving to each word of the laRt amendment the Importance to which Is entitled, It will be seen that while the legal voters of every city and town are authorized to license or prohibit the sale of Intoxicating li quors therein, the clause: "but Btich municipality shall within Its limits 1LS BULLETIN Information for buyers and sellers and people who interested in choice investments. are comtfc.!i.hon su-se rjr sis streetcar line, with will build on five The C. A. Demasters ranch on the rock road one mile from Sidney Mills and one mila frnm tu Electric, is for sale 233 acres and Improvements for 14,000. Oregon " , t u"1 "mn Boa Wlle. lw daughters, one of 16 and one of three who want t . yAfaLh ?H?0t fVe" ? getnlce de9lrabl9 "OOP'8 M tenants, and a maTwnc XViS&r P A nice building lot on ChomekeU street In the finest residence district The beet bargain in the way of a close-in home corner Mission and Liberty two lots and hard finish alx room house with modern improvements at $2000. Just think of It, on the right corner to he awar from the toUSrln8tnd BarVon pmce8129 ftBt bl0 " 150- Rm OB loU to' buTC or twi'MSj One of choicest places In Oregon, 22 acres of mature orchard, and Improvement, has all modern con veniences, worlds of fruit-the original home place of the Salem fruit farms, only 9000-and only ml?e -IW(!! 1t8o?9 b7.n? and,B?'en fm h08. '"Ill sell for 11450. $1000 cash, tlrna on balance. This prop, erty is on State Btreet, and there Is room for additional buildings. from the city limits. Two choice building lots on north Broadway, 60 by 231, snaps at $400 each. Eight room house and three lots, 45 by 135, all in fruit, on carllne in Englewood. $3000, The Hayden estate of 2500 acres, all kinds of land at all kinds of prices. Three lots 45 by 150, worth a thousand dollars if they are worth a cent, and a new eight room house with large closets, and two pantries, worth $2500, to trade for acreage, or for Bmaller house. Time on the bal. ance. Or three lots for sale at $700. Mrs. Catherine; Brown has withdrawn her two lots on Rural avenue for the present. A good six-room house, and lot 65 by 100, with chicken park and garden, at a low price.' Make him an offer. A choice lot on McGllchrlst street. A $1500 house and lot in a good live Idaho town for sale or trade. Modern 5-room cottage, almost new, barn, good sized lot, Tew Park between Tweirth and Fourteenth streets. $1500. One of finest fruit farms on Jefferson road, three-fourths of mile from forks of Liberty road, $1800 Im provements, $8000. Six acres in front will be sold for $3000, and five acres on back end of tract In aonles and walnuts will be sold for $1000. A new five room bungalow and choice lot, $2000, will trade for outside property. Fine $2750 city property to trade for ten acres outside property. Good lot and new house In Bishops addition for $2400. Two good lots Ferry and 20th streets, and $1700 house, a bargain for $2500. Double construction, hart finish, woodshed and henhouse. A complete home with good garden. we have one or the best five-acre tracts on the market, only 10 minutes' walk from good house, barn, chicken house aud yard, grove, and about 2V4 acres in orchard, owner acres adjoining and furnish water supply from windmill for both places. In full crop of fruits of all kinds and garden. Finest view of city and mountains, sheltered from south winds In winter, an ideal little home ranch for $2600. Compare this with anything that is offered and go and see the place and you will be de lighted. A good home close ln, four blocks from Marlon hotel, for a small family, house entirely rebuilt, concrete foundation, barn or woodshed, city water, electric lights, bath room, place for another bungalow on adjoining lots, two lots and house for $2000. Rents for $12 per month. The electric light and water fixtures cost $30. Street paving and sewer assessment $293.33 Included ln the above. The lots have a front of 102 feet on Mission street, and about the same on Liberty. Southeast corner. A good Investment Fine family home farm of 21 acres two and a half miles from city, halt mile to macadamized road, 8 room house, full grown apple and pear orchard, nine acres ln fruit, new windmill, barn, livestock, farm machinery, team, four Jersey cows, with place, ln full crop, $9,000. Fine young orchard place with $1800 Improvements, 3 acres prunes bearing, 20 acres planted to fruit, threefourths mile beyond forks of Jefferson and Liberty road, $8000. Stock and fruit ranch on Santiam river, 240 acres, 40 acres slashed, 10 acres in crops, 20 acres under wire fence, one acre eight year old orchard, one acres potatoes, one acre garden 18 head of cattle, team, wagon, harness, farm tools and crops, furniture worth $300, bungalow with five rooms, fire-place, three barns, cold spring that can be piped to house, six million feet of yellow fir piling and tie timber, $6000. Terms, halt cash. Three lots and three houses in West Salem on easy terms. First-class corner building lot on Commercial street ln finest residence part of city, $1500. Two lots on Rural avenue Just oft Commercial street, $300 each, , Have $400 to loan on real estate mortgage. . Eight-room house, fine lot 79x160, on carllne, In best residence part of city, fruit trees and fruit, modern Im provements, $5000. Best 20-acre prune orchard, in full bearing, one-halt mile from. Rosedale, $6000. Brush farm, fine fruit land, in Liberty district, 22 acres, 2 acres cleared, good house, $2200. Finest improved fruit farm and residence on Garden Road for sale on easy terms; $10 000. Half-acre tracts on South Commercial Street, close ln, on easy terms; $600. Three first-class 60-acre tracts on fine road, near church and school, per acre, $100. Five-year-old prune orchard, half-mile beyond end of carllne, sold In lots of two acres or upward, to suit purclnser, all but first two acres, $500 per acre. Half block, Twentieth and Trade streets, corner lot with house, $1200; three lots $800 to $1000. , Best five acres, with orchard, house and barn, little timber, Ideal little home lot, with $1500 Improvements, close to city, $2600. Four choice building lots, two facing Liberty and two on High streets, $800. Spot cash. All good, new build ings on the block. Lots large, 75x141, and all sewer assessments paid. E. HOFER & SONS, Salem, Ore. be subject to the provisions of the! Hon. As a preliminary to the con- as the "local option law'' making the local ontlon law of the state," Is a limitation upon the power delegated, whereby It can be exercised only in the manner prescribed In the law re ferred to. The word "exclusive" as thus used, when limited, as It is, by the clause referred to, is not, in our opinion, entitled to the force and Importance usually given to that ad Jectlve.i As such restriction contains no exception, we are of the opinion that an employment of the power conferred is subject to all the conse quences that may have resulted from anadoptlon of the local 'option law, so that an order of prohibition, mane ln the county as a whole, cannot be modified or vacated except by a sub sequent vote of the qualified doctors of the Incorporated city or town cast against prohibition at an election regularly called for that purpose in the municipality. No election of that kind ' having been held In the city of Joseph, the license Issued to defendant Is Invalid and hence the judgment Is affirmed. Burnett. J. Concurring specially: I agree to the conclusion reached by Justice Moore, but not with his reasoning. Prior to tho general election In November, 1910, section of article XI of the constitution of Oregon read thus: "Section 2. Corporations mny be formed under general laws, but shall not bo created by the Legisla tive Assembly by special laws. The Legislative Assembly shall not enact, amend or repeal any charter or net of Incorporation for any municipal ity, 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 crlmlnnl laws of the state of Oregon." At the elec tion alluded to the people by the Initiative process amended that sec tion bv adding to It these wordn: "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 sul)Jct to the orovls'ons of the local option law of the state of Oregon." The mean ing and effect of this addition to the section first quoted are the elements of the question presented for solu- slderation of the matters involved it legality of the liquor traffic to de is proper to note here the progross of pond upon the result of popular eleo statutory and constitutional leglsla- tlons to be held In a county as a tion as well as Judicial utterances ; whole or ln subdivisions or preclncta relating to the contention before us. First came the enactment by the Initiative process of what is known thereof. Laws 1906, p. 41; L. O. L. (Continued on Page 6) s A L E ure to please the lovers of a wholesome beverage, ways an invigorating, and delightful drink, pure ends strength to the weak and wearied physique, fleets a soothing cure for the nervous ills of life, Makes life more pleasant and cheers the heavy heart, rings good fellowship to all who partake in moderation, ilivens the spirit of the down- B P1 L cast and disheartened, E R ndows existence Willi hopes and aspirations estores man to fulness or strength and activity.
