Golden v. People ex rel. Baker

I am impelled to dissent because, in my judgment, the court has indulged in two fallacies: First, in holding that the Old Age Pension Amendment repeals article XXII of the Constitution to the extent that it authorizes, indeed, requires, that there shall be saloons; second, as a consequence of the first, that it is unnecessary to determine whether the licensed places are “saloons” within the meaning of that word as used in the article. If the first premise is wrong, and it is clear to me that it is, our duty boldly to determine the second question should not be evaded. It is too much to hope…