Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 October 1908 — DEMOCRAT PLANK FULL OF DANGER [ARTICLE]

DEMOCRAT PLANK FULL OF DANGER

Ward and Township Election Will Repeal Rsnunstrance Law It Is Declared.

SENATOR MOORE’S OPINION GIVEN Author of Remonstrance Law Says Where There Are Laws Giving the Same-Relief and Covering Same Territorial Unit, the Last One passed Repeals the Other. . Voters of Indiana should understand that there is in law a vast difference between county local option and ward or township local option. By request Senator Thomas T. Moore of Greencastle, author of the Moore remonstrance law, gives a clear exposition of the legal aspects of the two laws. Senator Moore says: The statement has been repeatedly made that there Is no difference between the local option plank in the Democratic platform and the one in the Republican platform. In replying to these statements, I want to say to the temperance people of the state that in my judgment there is all the difference In the world; so much so that one is supplementary to the present remonstrance law, and the other tends to destroy it. There Is no better established legal principle than this—that you cannot at one and the same time have two laws giving the same relief and covering the same territorial unit, but with different methods of exercise and enforcement. If you have a law giving certain rights or relief within a* given subdivision, and providing for the manner of enforcement, and the legislature enacts another law covering the

same subject matter and for the same object, and applied to the same territorial unit at the same time, but providing for a different manner of its exercise and enforcement or a different manner of putting it in operation, the last law, which is the last expression of the legislature on the subject, will control, and the former law will be repealed by implication. And this legal effect will follow, no matter if the legislature shall say in the subsequent and last act that the first act shall not be repealed by the second; for It is not in the province of the law-making power, by a mere declaration that it does not so intend, to prevent the legal effect of its action, which necessarily follows from the act itself. - I believe, therefore, if an act shall be passed, providing for local option by townships or city wards, which is the same unit now covered by our very effective remonstrance law, that such act will repeal the remonstrance law that has done so much to rid the state of saloons; and that It will leave in force only the power to proceed against the saloon by election in township or city wards, no matter if the law shall declare that it is not the purpose of such act to repeal ths remonstrance law. County Local Option.

On the other hand, county local option covers a larger and different territorial unit than does township or ward. It is legal and possible to have tn operation one method of proceeding for the county, and another and an entirely different one for the township or city ward, and both stand and be valid in law. They are not applied to the same territorial unit It is often said that under the Republican platform the question of "extending to the people of the respective counties of the state the right to exclude the saloon therefrom by vote at a special election,” would be submitting the question of "wet” or "dry" to the people, and that If there were in such county any township or city ward that was “dry” by remonstrance, that a refusal to vote the county “dry" would make these townships and city wards “wet.” This Is not correct. Under the Republican plank the question of "wet" cannot and will not be sub-

mitted to a vote. It is not a question "wet” or “dry.” The question Is, shall the county go “dry.” Such’ county is already "wet” under the law, and the only question is, shall the county as entirety be "dry”T If on a vote it tans to go "dry," then any respectable lawyer will say that the county has by the vote only elected to remain in statu quo—that is, to remain in the same condition It was before the vote, and any township or city ward that is “dry” Will remain “dry" and the rest of the county will remain “wet,” just

M It was before fSe vote was taken. There , cannot be any other tenable legal cohctructlon. It follows, therefore, that the township and city ward local option greatly endangers the present remonstrance law and will In my judgment repeal .it. On the other hand, county local option cannot affect ths present law, even though there should be no declaration (but there certainly will be) in the statute saving the present law, for no question of “wet” can be submitted, and the county unit is entirely different from the township ol city ward unit. That the effect of township and city ward Jocai option -will be as I have suggested, is made doubly evident by the fact that today every saloon keeper and every brewer is working sos and advocating township and city ward local option. Why? Let ever/ temperance man ask himself this question before he casts his ballot for thsl method. < Meaning of Saloon. It has been asked, what does tha word “saloon” mean, as used in the Republican platform? Every good lawyer and everyona else who has given the matter any attention, knows, that the word “saloon" when used in this sense means a place where Intoxicating liquors are sold in less quantities than five gallons at a time, to be used In and upon the premises. Indeed, the statute Itself uses the word “saloon”’ in defining the place where such sales may be made. Why evade or quibble about a word so well understood-and defined? There certainly is no merit in the question. The “blind tiger” law provides against sales being made elsewhere.

If we had county local option, Putnam county could be rid of the saloond. All of the saloons in the county have, under the remonstrance law, and the Moore law giving cities the right to exclude saloons from the residence districts, been restricted to the First ward of the city of Greencastle. There are six of them in that ward, but such is the sentiment in the First ward of the city, that a remonstrance will not prevail. Neither could it be voted out if we had township and ward local option, although a majority of the people of the county and city are opposed to saloons. With these six saloons in operation Putnam county is practically a “wet” county, and without a “county local option law” it cannot be made “dry.” With it, it could. But 4 per cent of the people of Putnam county live in this “wet” ward, and this 4 per cent of the county’s population keep the whole county “wet.” I warn the temperance people of the state that township and city ward local option will endanger the present remonstrance law, which has been placed upon the statute books with so

much labO! 1 , cost and pafnful effort, and in my judgment such a local option law will undoubtedly repeal the same, no matter what kind of a saving clause shall be put in the township and ward local option law In an attempt to save existing laws. Better jio new law at all, than one that will endanger or repeal so effective a law as the one now in force. A county local option law, if passed, cannot have this effect, in my judgment. THOMAS T. MOORE*. Greencastle, Ind., Sept. 15, 1908. The Democratic papers allege that most of the traveling men in Indiana have gone over pell mell to the “New Bryan.” A vote taken on the morning train, Monday, out of Indianapolis sorfth on the Indiana Southern railroad resulted as follows: Taft, 65; Bryan, 25; Prohi, 1; Hearst, 1; non-commit-tal, 2. This vote was taken between Indianapolis and Bloomington, and as usual the train was made up largely of traveling men going to their work and is a good criterion of the frame of mind of traveling men In this state. Those for Taft did not hesitate to declare themselves emphatically.—Greencastle Banner.

Marshall's evasion of Watson's direct and pertinent question concerning his action, if governor, on a county local option bill should the legislature pass one, and the general merriment It caused, was disgusting enough to Taggart, but what is the state of his mind now that he has read Marshall's worse break at Terre Haute, where he undertook to lecture the ministers of the state for presuming, like other good citizens to take an Interest in politics. The preachers, by-the-by, seem to have determined to show Marshall, Taggart, the brewers and saloon keepers that they are not the only competent politicians In town.— Newcastle Courier. The churches have as much biiifiinui In polities as the saloons, Mr. Ma» shall.—Marlon Chronicle.