LOCAL OPTION. A term often used to designate a right granted by legislative en actments to the inhabitants of particular dis tricts, to determine by ballot whether or not licenses shall be issued for the sale of in toxicating liquors within, such districts.
An act of this character passed in Dela ware in 1847 was declared unconstitutional as an attempted delegation of the power to make laws, confided to the legislature ; Rice v. Foster, 4 Harr. (Del.) 479; so, also, in Indiana and Iowa ; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342 ; Groeseh v. State, 42 lncL 547; Geebrick v. State, 5 la. 495. This kind of legislation has been supported, however, as falling with in the class of police regulations; Com. v. Bennett, 108 Mass. 27. In Pennsylvania, Agnew, J., in a leading opinion on this sub ject, says the true distinction is this: "The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend ;" Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 491, 13 Am. Rep. 716. The weight of authority is in favor of the cow stitutionality of local option laws; State Court of Common Pleas, 36 N. J. L. 72, 13 Am. Rep. 422; State v. Wilcox, 42 Conn. 364, 19 Am. Rep. 546 ; Fell v. State, 42 Md. 71, 20 Am. Rep. 83 ; Ex parte Swann, 96 Mo. 44, 9 S. W. 10; State v. Watts, 111 Mo. 553, 20 S. W. 237; Friesner v. Common Council, 91 Mich. 504, 52 N. W. 18. The Texas act is
valid; Rippey v. State (Tex.) 73 S. W. 15, affirmed in 193 U. S. 504, 24 Sup. Ct. 516, 48 L. Ed. 767.
That the general liquor law is suspended while the local option law is in operation is held; Stringer v. State, 32 Fla. 238, 13 South. 450; Batty v. State, 114 Ga. 79, 39 S. E. Norton v. State, 65 Miss. 297, 3 South. 665; State v. Beam, 51 Mo. App. 368 ; Boone v. State, 12 Tex. App. 184. These cases hold that one cannot be convicted under the gen eral law for selling intoxicating liquors with out a license when the local option law which prohibits the issuing of licenses is in force; contra, Com. v. Barbour, 121 Ky. 463, 89 S. W. 479, 3 L. It A. (N. S.) 620; State Smiley, 101 N. C..709, 7 S. E. 904; Webster v. Com., 89 Va. 154, 15 S. E. 513.
An act submitting to the voters of any dis trict the question of local tax for public school is valid; Coleman v. Board of Education of Effnauuel County, 131 Ga. 643, 63 S. E. 41; or the question of the adoption of an act for restraining domestic animals; State T. Mathis, 149 N. C. 546, 63 S. E. 99. So the submission of a charter to the voters of city ; Graham v. Roberts, 200 Mass. 152, 85 N. E. 1009.
See 12 Cent. L. J. 123; 12 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 133; Cooley, Const. Lim., 2d ed. 145. See DELEGATION ; LIQUOR LAWS ; LEGISLATIVE. POWER.