Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-07-08
MAY WITHDRAW NAMES
Judge wade's Decision in the
Iowa County Saloon Pc
tition Controversy.
Declares Names We're Legally
Withdrawn From Petition
Before Its Canvass.
Case May Be Appealed and sa-
looms Reopened Pending
the Decision.
;peciaI to Times.Renuhlican.

Marengo, July S.-The decision of
Judge Wade declaring the petition of
consent filed in this county insufficient
is attracting great deal of interest in
the county. The saloons are closed os-
tensibly, but in reality are doing bust
ness thru the back door. The case will
probably be appealed TO the supreme
court and pending decision the nine
saloons in the county will reopen for
business.
Judge Wade in his decision says:
THE sole question to be determined
is, whether. after statement of consent
% er cent of legal voters to authorize
the sale of Intoxicating liquors, some OF
the persons SO signing their names may,
by writing, Withdraw their consent, and
thus reduce the original statement to a
less number than IS per cent
1T is conceded by the appellant that
| II the Withdrawals can not be recog-
nized, that then the statement of con-
gent is sufficient; and appellees concede
that il the Withdrawals must be recog
| nized, that the statement of consent is
| insufficient, because it contains less than
65 per cent of the legal voters.
IF this came before me as an original
| proposition. I should without hesitation
/ hold that persons who signed the state
/ ment of consent have no authority tc
! withdraw such consent. l do not think
! that the legislature ever contemplated
| such proceeding, think shat the Ian
/ guage of the statute is clear that it is
the statements of general consent
4 which shall be canvassed by the board
of supervisors, and that anything thai
transpired after such statement is filed
should not in any manner affect the re.
4 suit
While this is my individual view. yet
the supreme court has passed upon this
matter in the case of Green vs.. Smith
let al, So y. w. Rep. AS. where tn.
lquestion was squarely presented TO th'
supreme court, and where, as in Thu
case the board of supervisors held tina
the Withdrawals could not be considered
The supreme court nolds that it is no
. the statement of consent alone which il
to be canyassed, but that the board il
to determine the question as to whether
or not as shown by the record at tn.
time of the canvass, 65 per cent of ths
legal voters consent to the sale.
Il was in hopes because of my view
of the statue aforesaid. that ] nigh
find some distinction which would war
rant a different result in this case blu
am unable to do so.
Some contention is raised as 20 tn
manner in which Withdrawals can b
ada n tf.iI IN
that Withdrawals can be made, and tn
statute fixing no time or manner il
which they shall be made. ii necessaril,
time before the canvass by The boar
and that when they are signed By tn
proper parties and clearly expressed tn
fact OF withdrawal of consent. they ar
sufficient. The Withdrawals in this cas-
are either sworn TO or acknowledge
by the parties signing them. or else &C
companied by an affidavit OF the part
: who saw them signed. and in addition
} is concede upon the trial 10 avoid tn
4 cost of producing witnesses, that II tn
: parties We're present and sworn. tina
each withdrawal Was genuine l am a
a loss to know in what stronger forr
the Withdrawals could be presented
"Counseis of appeilees contend tina
some of the questions raised in argu
mant here were not raised in argu
r ment before the supreme court N til
ii case referred to. However this may b'
ii is not the reasons given for decsio
. which is binding upon the lower cour
{ but ii is the decision Itself.
II may not agrees with the reasonin
by which result is reached by the 81
] preme court. but am under oath {
: office. bound 70 recognize the hlndir
. force and effect OF the proposition
law decided; and that the supren
court has decided that Withdrawals ma
be filed and must be considered by th
board, and that the board passed n,
!. upon the statment Of consent but upo
the fact Of consent as shown by ii
statement ard the Withdrawals, ,hei
can be no question. Therefore, wha
: ever my individual views may be, ha,
CAT TO hold that the withdrawals herei
a must be cons .dered, and that therefor
, the petition of consent is Insufficient