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.