2. Article 20 Not Self-Executing.
But, held, further, that said article is not self-executing; that it cannot be enforced by the penalties in the former license law; that the provision in that article that “the legislative assembly shall by law prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this article, and shall thereby provide suitable penalties for the violation thereof,” clearly indicates the intent of the constitutional convention that supplemental legislation should be the means of enforcing said article.
3. Article 20 Does Not Repeal License Law.
Further, that, until such supplemental legislation is had, article 20, while prohibitory in form, is in fact only a declaration of principles, and without force to repeal the prior license law; and hence relator’s restraint is not unlawful.
(January Term 1890.)
APPLICATION for writ of habeas corpus.
Messrs. Bangs and Fisk for the relator argued: § 217 of the Constitution of this State repealed all laws licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, because the license laws made to regulate traffic in such liquors are repugnant to the prohibition established by the Constitution; citing § 24 of the Enabling Act; § 2 of the schedule of the State Constitution; Norton v. Taxing Dist. of Brownsville, 9 Sup. Ct. Reporter 322; State v. Hanley, 25 Minn. 429; Ty. ''ex rel.'', McMahon, v. O’Connor, 41 N. W. Rep. 753.
Messrs. Greene and Hildreth, also for the relator, argued: The Enabling Act and the State Constitution expressly repeal the entire system of Territorial laws regulating the traffic in alcoholic liquors; citing United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88; Fraser v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 153; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. (U. S.) 429.
The penalties for violating the license law cannot survive that law; citing Maryland v. R. R. Co., 3 How. 534; Van Inwogen v. Chicago, 61 Ill. 31; United States v. Tynen, supra.
John M. Cochrane, states attorney of Grand Forks county, for the respondent, argued: That the Constitution is not in conflict with the license laws; citing Ty. v. O’Connor, supra, and Ty. v. Pratt, 43 N. W. Rep. 714; [[Prohibitory Amendment Cases]], 24 Kan. 723.
