Local Option

A privilege granted to a locality of determining by popular vote whether a general law shall be effective in that locality. Usually applied to the determination by popular vote whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be allowed in a particular locality.

A term often used to designate a right granted by legislative enactments to the inhabitants of particular districts, to determine by ballot whether or not licenses shall be issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors within such districts. An act of this character passed in Delaware in 1847 was declared unconstitutional as an attempted delegation of the power to Indiana and Iowa; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342; Groesch v. State, 42 Ind. 547; Geebrick y. State, 5 la. 495. This kind of legislation has been supported, however, as falling within the class of po Uce regulations; Com. v. Bennett, 108 Mass. 27. In Pennsylvania, Agnew, J., in a leading opinion on this subject, 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 to 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 constitutionality of local option laws; State v. Court of Common Pleas, 36 N. J. L. 72, 13 Am. Rep. 422; Slate 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. 5^3, 20 S. W. 237; Friesner v. Common Council, 91 Mich. 504, 52 N. W. 18. The Texas act is valid; Rlppey v. State (Tex.) 73 S. W. 15, affirmed in 193 U. S. 504, 24 Sup. CL 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. 918; 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 general law for selling intoxicating liquors without 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. R, A. (N. S.) 620; State v. Smiley, 101 N. C. 709, 7 S. B. 904; Webster V. Com., 89 Va. 154, 15 S. B. 513. An act submitting to the voters of any district the question of local tax for public school is valid; Coleman v. Board of Education of Emanuel County, 131 Ga. 643, 63 S. E. 41; or the question of the adoption of an act for restraining domestic animals; State v. Mathis, 149 N. O. 546, 63 S. E. 99. So the submission of a charter to the voters of a 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 Deleqatiok; Liquob Laws; Leopjlative

A privilege accorded by the legislature of a state to the several counties or other districts of the state to determine, each for itself, by popular vote, whether or not licenses should be issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors within such districts. See Wilson v. State, 35 Aria 416; State v. Brown, 19 Fla. 598.

Defined under Local in Black's Law Dictionary.

A privilege accorded by the legislature of a state to the several counties or other districts of the state to determine, each for itself, by popular vote, whether or not licenses should be issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors within such districts.