Arie v. State
| Decision Date | 02 February 1909 |
| Parties | ARIE v. STATE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The prohibition article, which was separately submitted with the Constitution for ratification or rejection, the party assailing the same failing to point out in what particular it was not properly submitted in accordance with Enabling Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 267, it having been declared adopted and accepted and recognized by the political departments of both the federal and state governments, will not be declared by the courts invalid, on the ground that it was not properly submitted or adopted.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 1; Dec. Dig. § 3. [*]]
It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the prohibition provision, required to be incorporated therein by virtue of paragraph 2, § 3, Enabling Act June 16, 1906, c 3335, 34 Stat. 269, should be enforceable in the courts of the state immediately upon the admission of the state into the Union.
2a. Such provision was incorporated in section 7, art. 1 (Bunn's Ed. § 9) by the framers thereof with a like intent.
2b. The prohibition article (Bunn's Ed. § 499; Snyder's Ed. p. 394; Gen. St. Ann. Okl. 1908, p. 162) was submitted as a separate proposition, with the intention that it should become effective over the entire state in like manner, if approved by the people and the Constitution was also ratified.
2c. A license issued under a general statute to a dealer in liquors is in no sense a "contract" between the state and the licensee, and is not protected by the contract clause of the federal Constitution, being a mere permit which may be modified, annulled, or revoked at the pleasure of the legislative power.
2d. A schedule to a constitution generally contains temporary provisions for the preparatory machinery necessary to put the principles of the government under the Constitution in motion without disorder or collision, not as a rule to control the principles of the organic law, or to limit the same, but to carry the whole effect without break or interval.
2e. The laws licensing the liquor traffic (article 1, c. 49 Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903), at the time of the admission of the state into the Union, were repugnant to the provisions of the prohibition article thereof, and were not extended to, and did not remain in force in, said state.
2f. A license to carry on the liquor traffic is revoked or annulled by the repeal of the law authorizing the granting of such license.
2g. A liquor license, the period for which it was issued not having expired when the state of Oklahoma was admitted into the Union, was revoked and discontinued on the admission of said state; the prohibition article thereof becoming then and there effective.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 8, 19, 21-25, 300; Dec. Dig. §§ 10 1/2, 22, 24, 136; * Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 114; Dec. Dig. § 107. *
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, p. 1524; vol. 8, pp. 7615, 7616.]
Certified Questions from Criminal Court of Appeals.
Nick Arie was convicted of an unlawful sale of liquor, and he brought error to the Criminal Court of Appeals, which court certifies to the Supreme Court questions involving the construction of the prohibition article of the Constitution. Questions answered.
On the 14th day of December, A. D. 1908, the Criminal Court of Appeals certified to this court two questions, as will hereinafter appear in the body of the opinion, in which the construction of the prohibition article of the Constitution of the state is brought into question.
A license which, when the state was admitted, had not expired, was thereupon revoked and discontinued; the prohibition of the Constitution then becoming effective.
James F. Steck and Stevens & Meyers, for plaintiff in error.
W. C. Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. "Was the constitutional provision with reference to the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, giving away, or otherwise furnishing intoxicating liquors, and designated in the record as the 'prohibition amendment to the Constitution' properly submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection, as required by the provisions of the act of Congress known as the 'Enabling Act,' entitled 'An act to enable the people of Oklahoma and of the Indian Territory to form a constitution and state government, and be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states,' etc., approved June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 276."
Section 4 of the enabling act (c. 3335, 34 Stat. 271) provides that: There is no contention that the convention had not the authority to submit the prohibition article as a separate proposition.
On the 16th day of November, A. D. 1907, the President of the United States issued his proclamation, which is, in part, as follows: "Now therefore, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do in accordance with the provisions of the said act of Congress of June 16th, one thousand nine hundred and six, declare and announce that the result of said election, wherein the Constitution formed as aforesaid, was submitted to the people of the proposed state of Oklahoma for ratification or rejection, was that the said Constitution was ratified, together with the provision for state-wide prohibition, separately submitted at said election, and the state of Oklahoma is to be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of said act, on an equal footing with the original states." Plaintiff in error has failed to point out in what particular the same was not properly submitted, but see the following authorities: Miller v. Johnson, 92 Ky. 589, 18 S.W. 522, 15 L. R. A. 524; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 12 L.Ed. 581; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 700; Kadderly v. City of Portland, 44 Or. 118, 74 P. 715, 75 P. 222. Where a proposition has been submitted separately, at the same time with the Constitution, for ratification or rejection, and declared carried and accepted and recognized as properly adopted by the political departments of both the federal and state governments, and the party assailing the part claimed to be invalid on the ground that it was not submitted as required by the enabling act fails to point out wherein the same was not properly submitted for ratification or rejection, the courts will not in that event, if at all, declare the instrument, or any part of it, invalid for not having been properly submitted or adopted.
2. "Was the liquor license, held by the employer of the plaintiff in error as a bartender, revoked by the adoption of the Constitution of Oklahoma, or continued in force in the state of Oklahoma for the period for which it was issued, by virtue of the provisions of section 1 of the schedule to the Constitution?"
For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the framers of a constitution we look at the entire instrument. The prohibition article (Bunn's Ed. § 499; Snyder's Ed. p. 394; Gen. St. Ann. Okl. 1908, p. 162), pursuant to section 4, supra, of the enabling act, was submitted separately at the same time the main body of the Constitution was submitted for approval or rejection; if approved to become a part of the main instrument, in the event of its approval. Said article provides that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial