The Brookhaven leader., 1891-02-05
The Old Petition Law, as EN-
pounded by It's Author,
Judge Campbell.
An Eye-Opener to the Whisky
Men from the Supreme
Court.

V. B. LEDBETTER.
From the Circuit Court OF Monroe county Hon
Loeb Z. Houston, Judge.
Ledbetter, n citizen of Aberdeen
| filed with the Board of Mayor and AL
dermen a petition for license to retail
On the same day a counter petition
was filed. The Board refused to grant
the license on the ground that Ledbet
ter did not have a majority of the le-
gal voters on his petition, after they
had scratched off several who were
registered voters. The circuit court
overruled the action of the city au-
thorities, and ordered the license is.
sued, whereupon the signers of the
counter petition appealed to the su-
preme court, where the action of the
city council of Aberdeen in refusing
the license was upheld in the follow
ing language:
BY CAMPBELL, j.:
All that has been urged in support
of the action of the circuit court, in
reversing the order of the municipal
authorities of the city of Aberdeen
and granting license to sell yinous and
spirituous liquor by retail in Aberdeen
may be admitted, and still the .judg-
ment of the circuit court must be re-
versed and vacated, and the order Of
the city authorities reinstated.
The circuit court proceeded on the
erroneous conception of the admirable
law entitled "An act in relation to the
sale of vinous and spirituOus liquor"
in the Code of 1880, by which, happi-
ly, this case is governed, since it has
not been superseded in Monroe county
by that mischievous law, approved
March II, 1886, miscalled local OPP
ton" law.
The Code chapter cited provides a
simple, direct, inexpensive and COM
plete system by which the will of
every local community constituting a
supervisors district or an incorporat-
ed town may be manifested to prohib-
it the retailing of liquors in such terri
torial limits. 1t is made unlawful to
sell without license, and obtaining Ii
cense is made impossible, if MAORI
ty of the legal voters are not actively
in favor of it, for the applicant for Ii
cense must present a petition for it,
signed by a majority of legal voters
resident in district or town, and it has
to lay over one month, and be pub
lished, so as to show what names are
on it, and give time for counter petit
tions, and any name on both petitions
is to be counted against the granting
of license. Besides this, majority of
the legal voters in district or town
may at any time, and without refer
ence to any person, quietly and with
out expense or excitement, by the
easy process of signing petition, alb
solutely inhibit the granting of license
to anybody, under any circumstances,
(even though they themselves might
afterwards petition for licensel for
twelve months. Thus difficulties are
placed in the way of obtaining license,
and efficient provision made for an ex-
preston of the Will of the legal voters
against granting license, and yet, if
every legal voter signs petition for
license, and all the conditions of law
are complied with, ever so strictly, a
right to have license as the result is
not given, for while power is conferred
to grant license, when everything re-
quired is done, no obligation is i'm
posed to grant it, and it may be legal
ly refused.
1t is unlawful to sell without license,
and severe penalties are provided,
and license can be obtained only in a
certain way, requiring the action of a
majority of legal voters in favor of it,
with time and publicity to prevent a
community being taken unawares, and
preclude imposition by using the
names of voters without authority,
and after all, it is discretionary with
the board of supervisors or town au-
thorities to refuse license, even when
it would be lawful to grant it, but, il
a majority of legal voters petition
against granting license, none can be
had.
The liquor traffic is condemned,
and prohibited, except upon condition,
and there is Encouragement and hind
rance to it's pursuit, while the prohibit
ton of the traffic is encouraged, and
the way made easy for any cOmmuni-
ty not in favor of retailing to inter
diet it.
The Code does not, as the act OF
1886, cited above, does, make it obi
gatory upon board of supervisors or
town authorities to grant license in
any case.
We are aware of the doctrine that
in some cases permissive statutes are
construed to be obligatory, but this is
not case of that character, as was
long since held. John Giles case,
Strange's Rep, S81, which was pro-
ceeding in the 4th year of the reign of
George III, to compel the granting of
license for an ale house.
The scheme of the law, set forth in
detail above, is to permit the evil of
retail shops, if all the difficulties
thrown in the way are surmOunted,
and the county or municipal authori-
ties see proper to exercise the authori-
'ty conferred to grant license. They
have power to grant license, if ma
jority of the legal voters are actively
in favor of it, and say so, in the man
ner prescribed, but are not compella-
BILE to do it. In the exercise of their
discretion they may Withstand the
pressure of universal desire for retail
ing.
The judgment of the circuit court is
reversed, the petition for certiorari
dismissed, and the order of the mu
nicipal board of aldermen left in full
force, and all costs in both courts adj
judged against the appellee.