Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-02-01
IS NOT A RIGHT
Supreme Court Decides That
Mulct Law is a Privilege.
APPLIES TO ALL IOWA
All Saloons in the State Operating I'M
der the Petitions Obtained Under
the Original aIulct LAW Are
lllegal-Short Session.


the Original aIulct LAW Are
lllegal-Short Session.
Des Moines, Jan. so-( Especial. 1.-The
supreme court yesterday handed down
an opinion to the effect that the sa-
loon petitions obtained under the ORR
ginal mulct law are insufficient, and
that the saloon men must meet the
requirements of the amendments OF
the last general assembly.
Tie opirioB rendered yesterday was
insthe case of the state of Iowa, ex rel.
~. G. West, gfvsssc Lorenz Ill. Several
years ago I'll was enjoined by the dis
trict court of Polk county from sell
ing intoxicating liquors. The injunc-
ton was issued under the old prohib-
tory law. After the enactment of the
mulct law sa1spet ition. Of consent was
filed with the auditor of Polk county,
and under this petition Ill opened sew
eral saloons in the city. The new code,
with the amendment to the original
s1nulct law, was adopted in October,
1897. Saloon men in nearly all sec
tons of the state relied on the old pc
titions, altho there were some cities
and towns in which new petitions
We're obtained. The suit against Ill
was brought for violation of the in
junction granted before the mulct law
was enacted. Ill admitted the selling
of Intoxicating liquors, but as de-
Tense pleaded that the city of Des
Moines had fled petition consenting
to the sale of liquors, and that he was
operating saloons under this petition
and could not be disturbed. In the
lower court Judge Bishop held that
IlPs defense was sustained, and that
the petition filed prior TO the adoption
of the new code was operative after
the code was adopted. With the Anti
Saloon League as hackers, the case
was appealed.
The supreme court holds that pro-
hibition is the rule in Iowa, and that
the bar to proceedings for violation of
the prohibitory law, known as the
mulct law, is privilege, but not a
right; the court holds that to avoid
prosecution under the prohibitory
law new petitions of consent must be
filed.
The decision on this question makes
every saloon keeper in the, state, who
has been operating under the old Pc
titions,s5a yiolator of the prohibition
law, and it makes guilty of contempt
OF court every saloon keeper who was
under an injunction not to sell liquor
before the mulct law was enacted A
compilation of figures on the saloon
question in Des Moines shows that a
large per cent of the saloon proprie-
tors in this city were under iniunc-
ton at the time the mulct law was en-
acted, and it is thought by the tenn
perance people that the same proper
tion will hold in most of the cities of
the state. Nearly every city and coun-
" in the state, which have had saloons
under the mulct law, have allowed
them to operate under the old petition,
so that if the law is enforced saloons
in nearly every part of the state can
be closed; and those who are under
injunction before the enactment of
the mulch law can be prosecuted for
contempt of court. The law makes
the enforcement of this law the duty
Of the county attorney and gives the
district judge power to discharge him
it he fails An investigation as to
whether he has attempted to enforce
the law may be demanded by any cit
izen of the county. If the temperance
people make good their bluff, and go
about the closing of the saloons, there
will be some offices in the state of
Iowa more desirable than that of coun-
sty attorney.
The question which the supreme
court was called upon to decide was,
whether or not a new petition must be
~ fof, al
the amendment to the original mulct
law. The original section was as fol-
lows: "a written statement of gener-
al consent. that intoxicating liquors
may be sold in such city, signed by a
majority of the voters at the preced-
ing general election, shall have been
sd Msa sp pdspos and hs sna
contemplated, until revoked, as here
matter provided" The amendment re-
quires that 1.-THE petition shall be filed
with the county auditor, and shall, by
the board of supervisors, have been
held sufficient and it's findings entered
of record She supreme court revers-
ed the Tower court, and held that a
new petition sfhnsf be obtained.
A question has now arisen as to the
right of the county attorney to close
the saloons, even tho the mulct tax OF
5000 may have been paid for the en-
suing year, and the city tax of 5000
annually, paid for the ensuing quarter.
The saloon men claim protection until
the expiration of these payments, at
least. The anti-saloon men here claim
that the state tax of 5000 is required
for any length of time saloon may
operate, even if it be only day, and
s make the same claim for the city Ii
cense.
The medical colleges of the state
4 have lobbyists at the capital trying to
prevent the passage of bill now be-
fore the senate providing that stud
ents in either of the medical depart
menss of the State University, who
shall have taken regular courses, and
Z graduated, shall be granted certificates
comforting the right to practice, with
out examination under the state board
of medical examiners.