The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-02-01
SALOON PROBLEM Up
Anti-SaIoon League Raises a
Case at MulhaIl.
NOW AT MANDAMUS STAGE
Citation of Previous Rulings
on the Point involved.

Guthrie. o. T, Jan. 31.-Knipe & HASTE.
saloon firm in the village of Mulhall,
have made application to Judge Burford.
of the district court, for a writ of man
damus to compel the board Of county
commissioners to issue them license to
sell liquor This legal action is the out
growth of an effort on the part Of the
Anti-Saloon league to prevent the grant
ing of saloon license to Knipe & HASTE,
who had filed their petition with the
board of county commissioners, signed by
thirty resident tax payers, as required by
law. The attorney for the Anti-Saloon
league opposed the granting of the license
on the ground that the signers were not
residents of the ward in which the saloon
is located. The county commissioners,
however, set aside the protest, they hold
ing that the signers on a petition need not
reside in the ward; that ward" in the
meaning of the law, included precinct, -
and under this construction they granted
a license, whereupon the Anti-Saloon
league took an appeal to the district
court. Subsequently, also, to- further
matters. the board of commissioners re-
voked their former action and recalled
he>lieense issued to Knipe & HASTE, for
what reason is not known, hence the
application for a writ Of mandamus.
The construction Of the law under which
saloon licenses are granted. especially
that part affecting the legality Of the
petition, has heretofore been passed upon
Al 81 10 4 Si711iI q I,
protest was raised against a saloon in
Mulhall two years ago. County Attorney
Strong then gave his opinion that the
signers needed only to be residents Of the
voting precinct in which the saloon was
located. The citizens of Mulhal appealed
the case to the district court and Judge
Dale held with the county attorney and
the license was granted. A similar appeal
was had in Canadian county and Judge
Tarsney held the same way
The attorney general of the territory
last year passed upon the same question,
in answer to request from the county
attorney of Woods county for a construc-
ton of section l. chapter %, Oof the ses-
sion laws of 1897, referring to saloon
licenses. upon which the following ques-
ton was propounded: do the thirty
petitioners in a, town like Alva need to be
residents of a ward or district in which
such saloon is located, or may they come
from the entire town in towns like
Alva?" 80
In answer to the question the attorney
general submitted the following opinion:
you are advised that it is the opinion
Of this Office that by section l. aforesaid,
the legislature intended to provide for the
licensing of the sale of tntoxicants under
certain limitations the Iimita tons being
that thirty resident tax payers within a
certain territory should sign the petition
of the applicant, setting forth the statu-
tory requirements concerning him.
THE territory in which these. petitioners
shall reside is surrounded by the circun1-
stances which govern the case In cities
it is apparent, I think, that the tax
PAYERS must reside in the ward, and in
towns or villages, within the limits of
such town or village.
1.-THE language used is somewhat am
higuous, but I think It fairly appears
from such language that the word ward
must apply to a place where ward ex-
lists under our statutes. towit: a city Of
the first class. I think it is equally ap-
parent that the words in the town or
village cannot be held 70 be words Of
limitation upon the word ward because
there is no such thing In a town or vii
lage as a ward.
Il therefore hold that the words town
or village are not words of limitation but