State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 28 January 1910
• Docket Number: No. 21,460.,21,460.
• Citation: 173 Ind. 414,90 N.E. 754
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

173 Ind. 414

90 N.E. 754

STATE

v.WILLIAMS.

No. 21,460.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 28, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wabash County; A. H. Plummer, Judge.

Gilbert Williams was prosecuted for violating the local option law, and from a judgment of acquittal the state appeals. Affirmed.

James Bingham, E. M. White, A. G. Cavins, W. H. Thompson, and F. G. Carpenter, for the State. Murphey & Todd and Condo & Browne, for appellee.

MYERS, J.

An election was held in Wabash county December 29, 1908, under the act of September 26, 1908 (Acts Sp. Sess. 1908, p. 4, c. 2), at which a majority of the legal votes cast were in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage in that county. Appellee on November 3, 1908, had been granted a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors for the term of one year. The local option statute passed both houses of the Legislature September 26, 1908. The acts were published and circulated in the several counties November 20, 1908, and the Governor's proclamation so made. Appellee was prosecuted upon an affidavit charging him with having made an unlawful sale April 12, 1909.

The question for determination depends upon the construction of section 9 of the act of 1908, reading as follows: “Sec. 9. If a majority of the legal votes cast at said election shall be in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage in said county, then after ninety days from the date of holding said election, all licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors granted in said county after the passage of this act shall be null and void, and the holder thereof shall be liable for any sale of liquors made by him thereafter the same as if a license had never been issued to him; if the holder of such void license shall surrender the same within ninety days from the date of holding said election, the county, town or city issuing said license shall refund to the holder an amount proportionate with the unexpired time for which the license fee shall have been paid: Provided however, that no license issued prior to the passage of this act shall be terminated by virtue of this act or any vote thereunder.” It is not contended but that the Legislature had power to annul the license, but that section 9 does not apply to appellee, for the reason that he comes within the proviso of the section as the holder of a license “issued prior to the passage” of the act, and the sole inquiry is as to the meaning of the phrase, “after the passage of this act.” It is urged by the state that the phrase is synonymous with “enactment” of the statute, and has no reference to the time of its going into effect, and that when the act went into effect it related back to the time of the enactment, and that the language so means in ordinary use and acceptance. On the part of appellee it is insisted that the phrase has reference to the time of its coming into force; that an act cannot be said to be passed until it becomes effective as a law. Two classes of cases are dealt with by this section, both having relation to the same period of time, one class not to be, and the other to be, affected by the act, but what is that period of time? In ordinary usage the passage of an act is well understood as that time when stamped with the approval of the requisite vote of both houses in the constitutional manner, signed by the presiding officer of each house, and approved by the Governor, or passed over his veto, or becoming an enactment by lapse of time; but its going into effect is an entirely different thing, and so well understood, and the inquiry is, Is there anything to indicate that the phrase “after the passage of this act” has a legal or technical meaning in this statute, to take it out of the generally accepted use, and understanding of the term?

It is beyond question that a legislative enactment can only go into effect either by the declaration of an emergency in the act itself, or upon distribution of the session laws to the various counties, and proclamation of the Governor. An act without an emergency clause cannot go into effect in advance of distribution of the session laws and proclamation, even though it fixes a time for its going into effect in advance of distribution and proclamation. Cain v. Goda (1882) 84 Ind. 209;McCalment v. State, 77 Ind. 250;Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37;Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 7 Ind. 13;McCool v. State, 7 Ind. 378; Ex parte Lucas (1901) 160 Mo. 218, 61 S. W. 218. Repealing or saving clauses in an act do not take effect at a different time from the act as a whole, though expressed in the present tense. Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490;Schneider v. Hussey, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 8, 1 Pac. 343. Outside this jurisdiction there is a decided conflict in the states as to the meaning of the phrase “after the passage of an act.” It is held in some of the states, and in the United States Courts, to mean the date of its enactment, authentication, and approval by the Governor or President, or passage over a veto. Eliot v. Cranston, 10 R. I. 88; Walker v. M. V. W. Ry. (1875), 29 Fed. Cas. 39;In re Tebbetts (1842), 23 Fed. Cas. 826;Johnson v. Fay, 16 Gray (Mass.) 144;Wartman v. Philadelphia, 33 Pa. 202;Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. S. 381, 24 L. Ed. 1104;State v. Mounts, 36 W. Va. 179, 14 S. E. 407, 15 L. R. A. 243; In re Chardavoyne, 5 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 466. The rule of the latter case is, however, denied in Re Howe, 48 Hun, 235, and the opinion of the Supreme Court is affirmed in 112 N. Y. 100, 19 N. E. 513, 2 L. R. A. 825. There are many cases to the point that the phrase “after the passage” of an act is a technical term, and refers to the time of its going into effect. City of Davenport v. Davenport, etc., Co., 37 Iowa, 624;Thompson v. Ind. School Dist., 102 Iowa, 94, 70 N. W. 1093;Bennett v. Bevari, 6 Iowa, 82; Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 435, 63 Am. Dec. 457; Harding v. People, 10 Colo. 387, 15 Pac. 727;State v. Bemis (1895), 45 Neb. 724, 64 N. W. 348;Walker v. State, 46 Neb. 25, 64 N. W. 357;Schneider v. Hussey, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 8, 1 Pac. 343; Jackman v. Garland, 64 Me. 133; Patrick v. Perryman, 52 Ill. App. 514; Ex parte Lucas (1901), 160 Mo. 218, 61 S. W. 218;Andrews v. St. Louis Co. (1884), 16 Mo. App. 299;Hill v. State (1880), 73 Tenn. 725;Logan v. State, 50 Tenn. 442;In re Alexander, 53 Fla. 647, 44 South. 175;Scales v. Marshall, 96 Tex. 140, 70 S. W. 945;Shook v. Laufer (Tex. Civ. App.) 100 S. W. 1042;Scales v. Marshall, 96 Tex. 140, 70 S. W. 945;Railway Co. v. State, 81 Tex. 572, 17 S. W. 67. In Mills v. State Board (1904), 135 Mich. 525, 98 N. W. 19, the court, referring to four or five of the cases cited above, uses this language: “In each of these cases, except Patrick v. Perryman , supra, the effect of holding the language ‘at the time of the passage of this act’ referred to the date the act was approved made the law take effect at an earlier date than under the Constitution it could. There was presented to the court in each of these cases therefore the alternative of declaring that this language meant when the law took effect, or that it meant nothing, and the court was therefore compelled to decide that it meant when the law took effect.” An examination of those cases fails to convey to our minds the inference drawn by the Supreme Court of Michigan as to all of them, though it does as to some, but they followed the Perryman Case.

This act undertakes to fix some period of time, to designate a class of persons who shall not be affected, and those who shall be. As the right to acquire license was not denied by the act, but recognized, with the contingent liability, by reason of the vote, of its being annulled, it must follow that this right was intended to be unaffected, irrespective of the question whether the contingency of the 90-day period should relate in time to the enactment by the two houses and approval by the Governor, or to the date of the act going into effect up to the time of an election. That is, that an applicant might acquire license, even after the act went into effect, subject to its being annulled by the vote, and except by an annulling vote, it would be immaterial when the license issued; and, with the general license statute otherwise unaffected, it was doubtless contemplated that there might be counties in which there never would be a vote adverse to licensing, or that it might be at some remote time, and that the right to apply for and obtain license should continue up to the holding of an adverse election. After such election the privilege can be no further extended, and prior to such election, but subsequent to the act going into effect, and up to the time of the election, there is a modified right. The contention of the state that upon the act going into effect it relates back to the time of the enactment, and fixes that as the date of passage, we think untenable. It could not, of course, relate back so...