delivered the opinion of the court.
The petition to prohibit the appointees of the board оf supervisors from holding the election ordered sets forth as its grounds an alleged disqualification of the members of the board of super
The propriety of the rulings of the board of supervisors cannot be called in question by petition for prohibition. That could be done only by appеal.
The point made on the language of the order of the board in speaking of voters qualified to vote for members of the legislature is without force, as one qualified to vote for members оf the legislature is a qualified elector for any election undеr our constitution.
In addition to the grounds set up in the petition, the argument of counsel in this case assails the act of the legislature рroviding for an election as ordered as unconstitutional on sеveral grounds. Among them is that disposed of by our judgment in Schulherr v. Bordeaux, Sheriff, ante 59.
Another is that the aсt contravenes the scheme of the constitution for the support of common schools, because schools are required by that instrument to be maintained, and among the revenues devoted by it to their maintenance are “all moneys received for licenses granted under the general laws of the State for the sale of intoxicating liquor or keeping dram-shops.” It is urged that the constitution recognizes the policy of general laws for granting licensеs to sell liquors, and founds the common schools in part on this basis for suрport, and that the legislature may not change this policy thus reсognized by the constitution, and may
We havе fully considered this objection and reject it as utterly without suppоrt in reason or authority. A rule or policy cannot be deducеd from the mere recognition of an existing state of things.
Such recоgnition and a declaration of will based upon it is not a perpetuation of that which is recognized. It cannot be held to prеvent change of the conditions recognized, and, besides this, the very constitutional provision invoked for the extraordinary view urged plainly implies the subjection of licenses to sell intoxicating liquor tо the laws of the State, those which may at any time be in force, thus embracing the idea оf what should at any time be the expressed will of the department intrustеd by the constitution with legislative power, i. e., the legislature.
The constitution does not establish any policy or ordain any provision as to licensing or trafficking in intoxicating liquors. As a distinct subject, it is wholly unaffected by that instrument.
Affirmed.