Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1888 — LOCAL OPTION CONSTITUTIONAL. [ARTICLE]

LOCAL OPTION CONSTITUTIONAL.

Opinion ol the Ablest Lawyers in Indiana. Many of the third party Prohibition advocates in this state are declaring that the indorsement of local option by the Republican party is a delusion and a snare, because local option will be declared unconstitutional. In taking this position the “Prohis” manifest more of their animosity to the Republican party than they do of a desire to speak the truth. The Supreme Court of this state has, time and again, affirmed the constitutionality of local option in various matters, and once directly sustained the local option of the Baxter lihuor law. Persons who * are in doubt on this subject may easily be satisfied by referring to the Indiana reports as follows: 34 Ind. page 182; 83 page 553; 42 Ind. pages 547 and 560. The stock law is a familiar illustration unquestioned validity of just such local option as is desired for the control of the liquor traffic. The supreme courts of Connecticut; Maryland, Minnesota and Arkansas have sustained local option,

and it has not been assailed in Michigan or Illinois. The law 1 in Michigan went down under a constitutional defect in its title. Fin- . . -i :y ally: Jf the Republicans are victorious in Indiana the Supreme Court will not be arrayed against local option by political considerations. 'The third party advocates must find a petter objection to lochl option than its alleged unconstitutionally. Their candidate for President, Garferal Fisk, says it is “a good thing in some localities as an educational force.” This “good thing” is attainable in Indiana through the success of the Republican party only. There is, therefore, only ope course left open for honest men who desire the benefit of this “educational force.” They must vote the Republican tickets —— In this connection -sye append the statement of nine of the ablest and best known members of the Indianapolis bar, in which they uhhesitatingly and publicly express their opinion, over their own signatures, that local option is constitutional. Here is what they say: “Local' option~is"’constitutional "in Indiana. Whoever asserts the contrary has not exaniined the law or willfully misstates it. Many statutes containing, the local option principle have been approved, among them the stock law, the law authorizing aid to railroads, and that known as the Baxter law’ of 1873. “The latter was fully considered by the supreme court'in the case of Groesch, 42 Ind. 547. It provided for a petition for a permit to be signed by a majority in a particular localityso that permits might be granted or withheld according to the local sentiment. “It embraces the exact principle of local pption.' It was upheld by the court without dissent. The case has never beeji bverniled or modified, and is.the latest on the subject. : )‘lt is supported by abundant authority in other states—42 Conn., 346; 36 N. J., 42Md., 71:21 Vt.. 456; 24 Minn., 247; 35 Ark., 69. Nor does such legisla? tion violate the constitution of the Unjted States—lß Wallace, 129; 112 U. 5.,205. “A local option law. like a law upon any other subject, needs only to be given a proper title and comply with the usual formalities of legislation to be constitutional. A law of this character recently condemned by the Michigan supreme Court was held tobeunconstitiftional.not because of the principle of local option, but because it lacked the necessary legal form. “There need be no fear such a law properly framed would be held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Indiana. “The case of Groesch has been often ’ approved by out court,and tlic authorities in support of it hate greatly multiplied elsewhere since that option was announcedF • ■— “John M. Butler, John B, Elam, “John S. Duncan, Ghas.,W. Smith, “F. Winter. W. H. Ketcham, “W. H. Calkins, R. Hill, ”W. H, FL Filler, Ccmmittee.”