The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-11-23
TO FIX JI)|NTISIS
Attorney General Goddard
Figures Out New Plan.
KANSAS CITY TO BE FIRST
Two War5an,O Suits viii Be
Brought Against Cities.

Topeka. Kan, NOV. attorney Gen
eral GODDARD now has under consideration
a new plan 10 break up The practice of
cities licensing saloons through the reg
ularly monthly me system, and he is
about ready 10 test it. Unles she changes
his mind, he viii try it on Kansas city.
Kansas. In effect, it is 10 Dust the city.
through quo warranto proceedings. from
4 collecting the license.
The records show that 2S cities in kan
/ sas are using the monthly fine system -
regulating the joints. This is an indirect
methad OF licensing the business. IN
+ these towns it is almost impossible TO
drive the joiutists out of business. Juries
/ viii not convict them. no matter how
7 strong the evidence Is. AS an iilustra-
ton: One time in Kansas City. Kansas,
Z 5. B. Bradford, then attorney general.
went into joint and bought liquor. He
then had the proprietor arrested and he
(Bradford) went on the witness stand and
swore positively 10 buying the liquor
and paying for it. Notwithstanding this,
the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
50 the authorities must find some other
method further removed from the local
ity in which such sentiment exists in
order to enforce the law, and the latest
scheme is the writ of quo warrantO.
The theory in adopting The new plan is.
that IL the people are prevented from de-
irving any benefits from the Joint busi-
ness in the way OF lines, they viii not be
so anxious 10 see the prOhibitOry law
trampled under foot. In other words. II
the jointists can't be made 20 help pay thu
expenses of me city government. the
people viii have no further use for them,
and viii not stand as an obstacle 10 pre-
vent the joiDUsts from being driven out
OF business and into jail.
While the quo warranto plan is regard
ed as new, yet it was really tried once.
But that was so long ago that it has
been forgotten. 1t worked like a charm
then. Why il was not worked more is a
mystery. 1t was tried in Topeka in the
early eighties. The city authorities at
tempted 10 saddle the monthly fine or
license system onto the people. County
Attorney Vance filed quo Warranto pro-
ceedings TO GUST the city authorities from
exercising any such authority. After a
bitter night, the supreme court granted
reads;
The city Of Topeka has not issued or
granted any written or printed license or
permits authorizing the sale Of iutoXi-
eating liquor but for the purpose of OBJ
tanning revenue has indirectly and evas-
lively authorized and licensed such sales,
and has obtained revenue from such
sales by imposing taxes or charges and
simulated fines and forfeitures upon the
persons making such sales Held. That.
as such power has not been conferred
upon the city the city may be ousted
from the exercise thereof by a civil action
I'm the nature Of quo warranto in the SUI
preme court
Chief Justice Horton wrote the opinion,
which concluded:
In conclusion, we hold that the right Of
licensing the sale of Intoxicating liquors
as a beverage, and the exaction of 4
tax or charge therefor. is q franchise
or privilege which neither the city of
Topeka nor any other city iu the state
has the power 10 exercise; and. if eXer-
ciscd. by any city, a proceeding in quo
warrantO is the remedy to Dust the CITY
from the unlawful assumption of such
power.
The court held that the monthly fine
system was i'm reality q license scheme
it is on this decision that the attorney
general viii rely in his crusade against
the license" towns
just when he win file his first suit the
attorney general refuses 20 say. He
viii tackle Kansas City. Kansas first,
because the fine system is ruu so openly
there that it viii not be difficult 20 show
that it is. in effect. license system
Seymour Webb. MORA. y I. writes.