Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 21 June 1890 — Page 6

INDIANA STATE NEWS.

Elkhart has a bicycle club. Jobbery rages rampant in Terre Hauto. New watermelons have reached South iBend.

The nbw infirmary in Grant county cost i$84)000. Midgo is destroying the Jackson county *ats crop.

Crawiordsville has hut $9,000 bonded in idebtedness. Richmond will eelebrate the Fourth with 'a parade of its industries.

The storm, Saturday night, did grout 'damage in many parts of the State, v: Wm. Snyder fell against a saw in a mill at Stony Hill and was fatally mangled.

The State Encampment, Son's of Vctc rans, will be held at Evansville, July 15 A calf with four eyes was born on the ifarm of Sheriff Burton, near Vincennes.

Unknown vandals destroyed eighteen monuments in the Hartford City cemetery Burglars plundered the safe in John Nohrman's store, at Ireland, securing $150.

Wheat fields in Boone county have de •Teloped wonderfully under the recentrains Spencer's big hotel and sanitarium was ,opened amid much -.enthusiasm on the Il2th.

Will Breeder was knocked down by one Mrs. Gambol in the course of a row at Coatsville.

Mail carriers have beon appointed, and •Anderson will have free delivery, begin ning July 1.

Hugh Sheeks, of Orange county, swal lowed carbolic acid, mistaking tie drug for paregoric, and narrowly escaped death.

Hiram Marling, who settled in Jackson county seventy-one years ago, and was one iof its valued citizens, dred Sunday of grippe.

The oil field as developed in Blackford county is six miles long and four miles wide, and the wells average twentyifive ^barrels daily.

Meat. Welch, of Derby, committed suicide on Saturday by blowing out his brains Several yeai-s ago Welch killed his father, for which he was sentenced to prison.

While Royal Catbcart and Mise Bugbee, of Bristol, were driving homeward after nightfall, they were met by highwaymen who robbed them of their possessions.

The oldest citizen in the State was taken •to the Little Sisters of the Poor at EVSIM* ville on the 13th. His name is Jacob JDi^hart, and he wasD born in Virginia (April 13,1788.

Miss Etta Rollins, of Laporte, who pwallowed paris green some days ago, died Sunday. Remarks derogatory to her character and emanating from idle gossip was the inciting cause.

Shelby county voted in favor of free isravel roads, but the commissioners claim ithat the board has no right to purchase two roads which run through a township vrfrich opposed the proposition.

Mrs. Nancy Lightcap.of Crawfordsville, (is charged cwith setting- fire to Elmer jMarsh's house becag$e Marsh had whipped fight. The trial is ereats ^B^Rmsiderable excitement.

The watch club lottery cases pending at •Crawfordsville, in which the publishers of the several papers were involved in so far lis giving space to the advertisements is concerned, have been dismissed.

During the heavy rain and wind storm Wednesday the roof of A. Nixon's house, «outh of Muncie, was blown off. The •mishap was not noticed by the family until the rain came pouring through the ceiling.

Johnnie Shortle, aged seventeen, one of the promising young men of Kokomo, was drowned on the 14th while bathing in the river at that place. At the last meeting of the Knights of St. John Society he was elected President.

John Wilmer cashed his pension check at Cannelton, and soon after disappeared. Several days later his dead body was found in the river, with his money gone and wounds upon the head, indicating that ihe had been murdered.

Michael Mills, of Rushville, a well*to-. do farmer, went to bed in good health on 'Saturday night. About midnight his wife was awakened by his loud "snoring." She .•poke to him about it and then went to sleep again. In the morning, when she awoke, he was cold in death "y'Sh,

Arthur Deming, of Terre Haute^ca tried $13,000 life insurance in the JEtna Com pany, and after his death the company resisted payment, alleging that alcoholism contributed to bis demise. Suit was brought and transferred to Putnam oounty, and the case finally went to the Su preme Court, the company being held responsible. Tuesday the claim was paid. |l. Capt. T. W. O. BraCut, ex-Auditor of ll^Wayne county, attempted suicide at his jaome in Richmond, on Sunday, by shoot-

Mmself in the heud. The act is attri business troubles, and to un-» "Viticiams of his official course v. After the close of his £81*8 ago, he and others were 'L. charging exorbitant fees, and igji iw^TJ^lnd guilty and fined on some of the counts.

There was a strange scene at Sim Coy's .resort, Indianapolis, on Sunday last. Thos [Doutney, the temperance evangelist, and wife, held a meeting there, while a base ball game was in progress, and the thousands of beer drinkers were emptying the sual Sunday supply of 135 kegs. Sim mounted the platform and made a speech amid cheers. He said he wasn't such a bad fellow as he was painted, though temperance folks might object to his calling ,, Prayer, singing, exhortation, cheers from the ballplayers, ribald jests from the beer drinkers and demi-monde, made the pro ceedings unique in the history of temper-. ance meetings in the city.

The Hendricks' Monumont Commission Wednesday morning received a telegram announcing that the missing purts of the statue have arrived in New York, and will reach Indianapolis early next week. The jiews was a great relief to the members of commission, who were beginning to '-flrvous lest the stones should not artime for the workmen to get the Vj ..•""({.ont In position by July 1. Work

T^dy been suspended oil account of of the blocks to arrive. The es in oharge of the arrangements veiling aye pleased with the prosargeMte®dauce from all Indiana eV Sftftfes. It is provable that

uniformed olubs will be here from- Cincinnati and Chicago, and* Governor HU1, of Now York, expeots to bo here, if h« con possibly got away from official duties.

DEATH N THE STORM.

Two clouds met and burst at Dull Run Creek, near Maysville, Ky., tho night of the 12th. The creek overflowed and carried away several dwellings and their occupants. It washed away a stone culvert on the C. & O. railroad and freight train ran into the washout, causing a fearful wreck. Tho engine and nineteen cars are piled upon the top of one another, nine carloads of boots and shoes being in the wreck. The bodies of engineer Roadcap, fireman Honaker, and tirakeman Eaton have not been recovered, and about a dozen persons living on the bank of the creek are reported drowneu. James Irwin had a portable saw-mill located several hundred yards up Bull creek above tho railroad. The clouds suddenly bursting caused a rapid rise in the creek already badly swollen by the storm. Farmers say the creek rose two feet per minute, and the water looked like a wall twenty-fire feet high when it got to the railroad fill. The saw-, mill was lifted from its fastens ings and, with over a hundred big logs, hurled violontly against the railroad stone culvert. This is probably what caused it to give way. Huge stones weighing several tons were carried by the creek long distances. The creek rose two feet higher than it has beon in forty years. The fury of the storm caused many people on Bull creek to abandon their homes and take to the hills, else tho loss of life would have beon greater. The storm did much damage to buildipgs, fences and crops in that portion 6f the couutv.

WILL POACH IN BEHRING SEA.

CamdlRn Sealers Ordered «o Enter Forhidden Waters- lSrltisli War Ships to I'rotect Them.

The sealing schooner Lillie sailed fr Victoria on the 16th for Bearing sea, whd she will hunt for seals. A reporter *1 her owner just before she sailed, and informed that he had given the captain positive orders to hunt in forbidden waters. Other owners have also given their vessels similar instructions, and word h».s been sent by vessel to schooners cruising on the west coast of Vancouver's island to proceed to feehring sea. The full Victoria fleet wj.ll enter the sea. H. M. S. Amphion, which ran on a rock while conveying Lord Stanley from Victoria to Vancouver some months ago,'.will leaveEsquLmatydrytMsk in a few days, and there is a settled corvjjc?. tion among sealing men and others interested, that she has orders from the 1ms perial government, to cruise in Behring sea. Preparaticas are being made for a long -cruise and, although, of course, her destination is kept secret, enough is known to warrant the belief that she has been ordered in Behring sea, and look after the interests of any Victoria sealing vessel which may enter disputed waters. Naval officers, moreover, are looking for some active work this summer. Sealers, however, know that there is no absolute certainty of their receiving protection, and are prepared for losses, while they hope for the best. Exciting news from Behring sea may be looked for about the latter part of July.

WOOL-GROWERS AND Tnr TARIFF.

The national wool -growers' uvention met at Galveston, Tex., A. E. Shepard presiding. The following resolutions were adopted:

Resolved, That amendments to the McKinley bill should be made by the Senate which shall provide substantially that all foreign wools having any cross or admixture of merino or English blood shall be classified so as to pay duties imposed upon Class 1 or Class 3 wools, according to the nature of the cross or admixture, and that the Secretary of the Treasury be required to remove all samples now in custom houses of the United States for the purpose of classifying foreign wools for duty, substituting new samples in accordance with the principles above stated.

Resolved, That Paragraph 888 of the McKinley bill be amended by striking out the proviso contained therein, and that Paragraph 6088 be changed by striking out the words "Russian camel."

Resolved, That we earnestly recommend that any further changes that may be made in the MoKinley bill shall be only suoh as will give to the wool-growers of the United States protection on wool as grown by American flqek-masters.

Resolved, That we protest emphatically against any law that will in terms or by implication permit wool to be imported in in any other than its natural condition as shofu from the sheep, except as washed or sn.nnrnVl in nnhrnlffin

gf THE MARKETS.

IiiDiA-NAPOLis, June 1(51890

Wheat. Corn. Oats. Rye.

Indianapolis.. Chicago... Cincinnati St. Louis New York Baltimore Philadelphia. Toledo Detroit Minneapolis Louisville

2 r'd 88 S r'd 83 2 r'd 884

1 3S^'2 29X 2yc3i% 31

2 r'd 88

2 r'd 87

2 r'd 91

33'A So

2 r'd 92 89 y,

Clover Seed 325

1 wh 89

30H

LIVE STOCK.

CATTLE-Export grades [email protected] Good to choice shippers 4.00(c$4.35 Common medium shippers.... c8.25W3.75

Stookers,to

500 to 850 lb [email protected]

ood to choice heifers 3.25(^4.75 Common to medium heifers..... [email protected] Good to choice cows 2.90®)3.2o Fair to medium cows HOGS—Heavy Light Mixed Heavy roughs SHBEP-Goodto choice Fa rto medium

2.25(3)2.70

[email protected]

MISCELLANEOUS.

Eggs 10c. Butter, Creamery lSr®20 Dairy 10, Good Country 7c. Feathers, 85c. UeesWax, 18@20 Wool 30@35, Imwashed 22 Poultry, Hens 7}4g. Turkeys 8c roosters clover seed 3,[email protected].

A LOCAL OPTION LAW.

HON. JOHN M. BUTLER BELIEVES IT CONSTITUTIONAL.

His Views as Expressed In a Lengthy and Careful Opinion Concurring Endorsements by Several Other Lawyers.

In response to an inquiry from Hon. John B. Connor, secretary of the Indiana Local Option Association, Hon. John M. Butler gives it as his opinion that a local option law in Indiana would bo constitutional. Believing that a general interest attaches to the subject we give the opinion herewith. He says: "The ground upon which

ihe

Art. 1, Sec. 3(5. "The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by authority of the General Assembly."

If these decisions correctly interpreted and construed the Constitution, it is very evident that a Looal Option Law would not be valid and constitutional.

Under these decisions, and the decisions of other cases following their lead, a good and wholesome law regulating and restricting the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and embodying the principle of Local Option, was stricken down and the Free School System of Indiana was crippled and partially paralyzed.

These decisions, even if they were still held to be correct interpretations of the Constitution, would be of little or no value in behalf of that class of temperance advocates who believe State Prohibition of both manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to be the only proper method of dealing with the subject, and who profess to believe it a SIN to regulate and restrict the traffic in intoxicating liquors by penal license statute.

The public sentiment aroused by the decision in the case of Maize vs. The State, supra, resulted in the enactment of a prohibitory law by the Legislature of 1855. This prohibitory law was approved February 16, 1855, and took effect Jube 12, 1855. On October 80, 1855, in the habeas corpus pro ceedings of Herman vs. The State before a Judge of the Supreme Court this prohibitory law was held uncbn stitutional.

Again, on December 20, 1855, in th^ case of Bebee vs. The State, 6 Ind 501, tho full Bench of the Supreme Court of Indiana held this prohibitory law unconstitutional—.fudge Gookins alone dissenting.

These decisions holding the prohi bitory law of 1855 unconstitutional are based upon sueh grounds as, correct, would make it well-nigh im-

possible to so amend the Constitution as to make it support a prohibitory law. They hold, in effect, that the prohibitory law is in direct conflict with the foundation principles of civil government as embodied in tho Bill of Rights. How it oould bo possible that the Supreme Court of Indiana could ever have so hold seems now amazing and incomprehensible.

A comparison of these decisions of tho Supremo Court of Indiana, rendered in 1853-4-5, with more recent decisions of that Court, will satisfy the most skeptical that tho world moves, and moves rapidly.

It would now be very difficult to find any lawyer, either in or out of Indiana, who would undertake to defend the decisions in Maize vs. The State and Greencastlo Township vs. Black, supra, as just and correct interpretations of the State Constitution.

ponents of a Local Option Law base their objections is that such a law would conflict with the following provisions of tho Constitution, namely:

Art. 4, Sec. 32. "The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of tho following enumerated cases, that is to say. "For the punishment of crimes and mis* demeanors "Regulating county and township business "For the assessment and collection of taxes for State, county, township or road purposes "Providing for supporting common schools and for the preservation of school funds."

Art. 4, Sec, 23. "In all the cases enumer-, ated in tho preceding section and in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State."

Art. 1, Sec. 25. "No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution."

They have been, either in express terms or by direct implication, repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court, while the Legislature has, in tho face of these decisions, and utterly ignoring them as correct interpretations of the Constitution, enacted many important statutes, now in force and unquestioned, embodying precisely the same principles that were embodied in the laws stricken down by these decisions.

The grounds upon which the Local Option Law of 1853 and Section 1130 of tho Free School Law of '52 were held unconstitutional were: 1. That they were local laws: 2. That they were not

These provisions of the State Constitution have been repeatedly construed and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Indiana. If the decisions of that court were uniform, and without conflict, it would be easy to close this opinion at once by citing adjudicated cases and decisions covering the constitutional question involved. But, unfortunately, the decisions of the Supreme Court on the points involved in an answer to your request, are not uniform, but are irreooncilably conflicting. This conflict of decisions renders it proper and, perhaps, necessary to review the leading decisions in jftt&r^TCtatiouof Constitutions is, that which the above quoted provisions of the Constitution.^ teefn construed.

By- enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, approved March 4, 1868, it was provided:

That no person shall retail spirituous liquors except for sacramental, mechanical, chemical, medical or culinary purposes, without the consent of a ma)ority of the legal voters of the township who may cast their votes for license at the Aoril election,"—Acts 1853, p. 87.

This, it. will bo observed, was, in effect, a Local Option Law. In Maize vs. The State, 4 Ind. 342, decided November 29, 1853, the Supreme Court of Indiana held this provision above quoted unconstitutional, on the ground that it was in conflict with Sections 25 and 26 of Article 1, and also with Sections 22 and 23 of Article 4 of the Constitution—which are the sections above quoted.

By Section 130 of the Free School Law enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, approved June 14, 1852, it was provided: "The voters of any township shall have power at any general or special meeting to vote a tax for the purpose of building or repairing school houses, and purchasing sites therefor, providing fuel, furniture, maps, apparatus, libraries or increase thereof, or to discharge debts incurred therefor, and for continuing their schools after the public funds shall have been expended, to any amount not exceeding in all fifty cents on each one hundred dollars of property, and fifty cents on each poll."

Greencastle Township vs. Black, 5 Ind. 557 to 677, decided December 12, 1854, the Supreme Court of Indiana h«ld this provision last quoted uncon Btitutional on the ground that it was in conflict with the sections of the Constitution above quoted—particularly with Sections 22 and 23 of Article 4

'of uniform

operation throughout the State: 3. That the taking effect of these laws was made to depend upon a popular vote, and that, therefore, legislative authority was vested in the voters of the several localities or municipal sub-divisions of the State.

Neither of these objections will stand the test of reason or authority. A local law is a law affecting only a de finitely described and limited portion of the State, and that cannot have any force or effect in any. other portion of the State.

The ordinary and usual meaning of the word "local" is, "pertaining to a place, or to a fixed or limited portion of spaoe "limited or confined to a spot, place or definite district-" The

the words must be taken in their ordinary and usual sense and meaning. Hence it is easy to see that a law that grants precisely the same rights, privileges and immunities to'every portion and sub-division of a State, and to every resident and citizen of the State, can not be a local law in the sense in which those words are used in the Constitution.

A Local Option Law applying to the entire State can not, therefore, be obnoxious to the Constitution on the ground that it would be a local law. The very words "Local Option Law" clearly indicate that the law covers the entire State, granting the same rights, privileges and immunities to all the people of the State, but that it gives to the people of the different localities and sub-divisions of the State the right to exercise an option regarding the manner in which they will use the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the law.

The objection that Local Option Laws cannot be 'of uniform operation throughout the State" is wholly untenable.

A law is of uniform operation throughout the State whenever it gives precisely the same rights, privileges and immunities to all the people of the State and to every locality and sub division of the State. The people of one locality may use the rights, privi leges and immunities granted by the law in one way the people of another locality may use the same rights, privileges and immunities in another way, but that does not prevent the law granting these rightB, privileges and immunities from being of uniform operation throughout the State.

It operates with perfect uniformity because it grants the same rights, privileges and immunities to all the people of the State, wholly irrespective of locality.

Neither is it true that the taking effect of Local Option Laws is made to depend upon a popular vote nor that such laws vest legislative authority in the voters of separate localities or municipal sub-divisions of the State, to enact, put into force, repeal or suspend the law. When a law containing Local Option provisions is possessed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor, and has been duly published—if it has no emergency clause—it goes into full force and takes effect, and continues in full effect and operation, just as any other law does. It rests equally upon every portion of the State, and gives to every voter of the State the same rights, privileges and immunities that it gives to any one voter of the State. The voters of the peveral localities have no legislative authority given to them. They cannot modify, amend, repeal or suspend the law it remains in full force bnd unsuspended. All that the voters of the several localities can do is to determine by their votes how they will use the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the law.

The faot that all of the separate localities of the State may not determine to use the rights, privileges and im-

All laws for tho punishment of crlmo must necessarily lack uniformity of operation, in one sense of that term, both as to persons and localitios. They operate in those localities where they are violated, and upon those persons who transgress them. Some localities have no criminals. Can it be reasonably contended that the criminal statutes are suspended and not in force in those localities?

Laws granting Civil remedies arc of uniform operation, and remain in full force and effect throughout the Stato, whenever they grant the samo rights and remedies to all citizens, in all parts of the State, under like circumstances.

In some localities 110 attempt may bo made for years to enforce any civil right or remedy. Does it follow that the laws granting civil remedies are suspended and not in force in those localities during those yoars?

It is evident that tho only sense in which laws can be "of uniform operation throughout the State" is that their oporation shall be the same in all parts of the State, under the same circumstances and conditions. In this sense Local Option Laws are of uniform operation throughout tho State equally with any other statutes.

The current of decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana, for the last twenty years, at least, has been steadily against the doctrines announced in Maize vs. The State and Greencastle Township vs. Black, supra.

In 1873 the act commonly known as the Baxter Law was duly passed and approved. This law was, in effect, a Local Option Law. The second section contained the following provision regarding the petition for licenso, namely: "Which petition shall be signed by the applicant, and also by a majority of the legal voters rosident in the ward, if it be in a city or town, if it be an incorporated town or township wherein the applicant proposes to sell intoxicating liquors."

If a majority of the voters of the ward, town or township refused to sign tho petition no license could issue, and the traffic, was absolutely prohibited in that locality.

In Grcesch vs. the State. The Supreme Court held this provision valid

universal rule for £he CO constitu ti dS In tho opinion Judge Downey used til84lUowing fo rcible language: "The material qttS?tj£m here is, does the act in question confer upon the people or a portion of the people legislative authority? The ground taken is, that tho law is not in force in any township, town or ward of a city, until tho requisite number of voters have signed a petition, and that it is the act of such voters in signing the petition which makes the law. In our judgment this position is untenable. cannot regard the act as conferring upon the petitioners legislative authority in any sense of these terms. It might as well be said that the law which authorizes the laying out of a public highway by authority of the County Commissioners upon the petition of a designated number of persons, was unconstitutional beoause it conferred upon such petitioners legislative authority."

While this decision does not expressly overrule the decision in Maize vs. the State, supra, it does, by clear implication, overrule that decision.

The decision in Greencastle Township vs. Black, supra, has been expressly overruled.

Many important statutes now in force, governing the people of Indiana as to subjects of vital importance to their general welfare, are, in effect, local option lawe, under which the people of localities and municipal subdivisions of the State, are permitted, either by popular vote or by petition, to determine how they will use the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the legislature, or whether they will use them at all.

In addition to the laws upon the subject of drainage, roads and courts, mentioned in the opinion in Robinson, Treasurer, vs. Schenck, supra, it may be proper to mention two or three other very important statutes embodying the principle of local option.

The statutes authorizing localities and municipal sub-divisions of the State to aid, by taxation, the construction of railroads, are local option laws. The voters of the township, or other municipal sub-division of the State, determine by popular vote just how they will use the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the statute. They can grant or withhold aid at their pleasure. Yet these laws have repeatedly been held valid and constitutional.

The statutes authorizing the formation of new counties, and the relocar tion of county seats, are local option laws. No new county can be formed, nor can a county seat be re-located, except upon the action of the voters of the locality, expressed by popular vote or by petition. These laws have been held constitutional.

The statutes of September 19, 1881, and March 8, 1889, providing for the purchase of toll-roads, and making them free highways, are local option laws. The voters of the localities in which toll-roads are situated determine, by vote, whether they will or will not purchase the toll-roads and make th«m free highways.

No one questions the validity and constitutionality of these laws. They

munities granted by the law in the same way, does not change, suspend do not go into force by virtue of the or repeal the law in any locality. It act of the voters. They are already in remains in force and operation in all of full force and effect. The voters simtlie localities regardless of the differ- ply determine how they will use the ent use made by the different localities rights, privileges and immunities of the rights, privileges and immuni- granted to them by these laws. One ties granted by it. township may vote to purchase the toll

The voters of a given locality may roads within its boundaries an adjoinne year use the grants given by the ing township may by its vote refuse to in one way, the next year the may purchase the toll roads within its se the grants given by the law boundaries. Does any one suppose an entirely differeat way, but that this makes the law not of uniform [his change of the use of the rights, operation Again, there are many rivileges and immunities granted by townships in the,State in which there law neither amends, repeals, sus- are no toll roads. Does anyone supads, enacts nor puts in force the law. pose that on thajt feaocount tbeae statutes

are local laws, and, therefore prohib ited by the Constitution? Common sense answers both of thesfl questions in the negative. The statute! are "of uniform operation throughout the State" beoause they grant the samo rights, privileges and immunities to all the townships in tho Slate, namely 1 tho right to purchasotoll-roads if thera are any within their boundaries. They are not local laws because they apply equally to all the townships of the State that now have, or that may here. after have, toll roads within their boundaries.

It is impossible to discover or delina any difference in principle between theso various local option statutes above mentioned and a local option law regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in a carefully considered opinion overruling former decisions of that Court, well said: "The wit ol man can not draw a well-grounded distinction botween the result of a voto upon license in a township and the result of a voto upon the existence of the township and the removal of a court house, or the subscription to stock, or tho consolidation of an outlying district with a city."

In discussing tho question of the constitutionality of Local Option Laws. that eminent jurist, Hon. Thomas M. Cooley, after citing and commenting on the decision in Maize vs. The State, supra, and other early decisions of like import, said: •But the sL£Ma£icii ia yentw-ylvania was aLerwards overruled on full discussion and consideration, and that in Indiana must, we think, be deemed overruled also. In othor States alike delegation of authority to the local electors has generally been sustained.' Such laws are known, in common parlance, as Local Option Laws. They relate to subjects which, like the retailing of intoxicating drinks, or tho running at largo of cattle in the public highways, may be differently regarded in different localities, and they are sustained on what seems to us the impregnable ground, that the subject, though not embraced within the ordinary power of the municipalities to make by-laws and ordinances, is nevertheless within the class of police regulations, in respect to which it is/".-': proper that the local judgment should control." in lio'cfejt''.vs.The State, 105 Tnd. 255, Chief Justice Nib lack defined this" pu-'r." lice power in the following terse and well chosen words: "It is a power in- v'f herent in every sovereignty, and is. in its broadest sense, nothing mo'-o than tho power of a State to govern men, and things within the'limits of its own dominion. •It extends to the protection of tha. lives, limbs, health, comfort and eon-| vonience, as well as tho property, ofl all persons within the State. It an-:.

thorizes the Legislature to prescribe: the mode and manner in which every-, one may so use his own as not to in-' jure others, and to do whatever is noc.essary to promote the public welfare, not inconsistent with its own organio' law.

This statement clearly announces the foundation principle of civil gov st ernment upon which the validity and.'^*' constitutionality of all such laws must. rest, namely: the police power inhor- •, ent in all civil governments and mu- .• nicipalities. 'ifpl

In State of Indiana ex rel. Snoke vs. Blue, Trustee, decided Jan. 13, 1890, rjis'1 Judge Elliott, in holding the School1^-, Book Law of 1889 constitutional, said:' "The act assailed does uoi infringe in the slightest degree upon the right of* local self-government. The right ofj local self-government is an inherent and not a derivative one. Individualized! it is the right which a man possesses. in virtue of his character as a froe'hman. It is not bestowed by Legisla-'^V tureB. nor derived from statutes."

These definitions, taken together, 'J clearly define the principles upon which, and the boundaries within which, Local Optioa Laws are valid 1# and constitutional.

That Local Option Laws touching traffic in intoxicating liquors fall dU rectly under these definitions is tod^Vr^, „/r clear for controversy. This is true .y- ,-i regardless of the fact that Local Op-,. i:', tion Laws may, and often do, result in absolute prohibition of tho traffic in intoxicating liquors to be used as beverages.

In rendering the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Utates in '0^ry*i? as a us 9 7 S

3 2 3 3 us ad us following language: "If the public safety or the publiq^y,/.,' morals require the discontinuance ofl any manufacture or traffic, the hand of the Legislature cannot be stayed from' providing for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience which indi-J vi a or or at on a All rights are held subject to the,I

Most respectfully yours, Ifff JOHN M.

win, R. T. St. John,

w£.

police power of the State. Whatever differences of opinion may, exist as to the extent and boundaries"" of the police power, and however diffi- '11 cult it may be to render a satisfactory definition of it, there seems to be no 3 doubt that it does extend to the pro-:"":^ iv a a erty of the citizens, and to the preser- -V vation of good order and the publio" morals."

mm ip

liUgg

In view of the' reasons and authorities above given, I am of the opinion -V that a Looal Option Law, regulating" .-''ii the traffic in intoxicating liauors, would be valid and Constitutional under the present Constitution of tho J' State of Indiana.

BUTLER. -L\

Indianapolis, Ind., March 25, 1890. *'x

This opinion is concurred in by tha

following prominent lawyers: S. N. Chambers, W. R. Harrison, I).

Bald

S. Kennedy, D.

Vinton, James H. Jordan, John H. Stotsenburg. John H. Baker, Calvin Cowgill, Edwin

Hammond. T. B.

Redding, WillCumback and Levi Rilte»«