The Van Buren press., 1901-04-27
,mpor,.n, Decision on Liquor License.

A decision of unusual importance
was rendered in supreme court las
week, in the case of Ross VS.. Moore e.
al. In January the county court Of
White county granted license to c
T. Ross to sell liquors in Beebe dur
ing 1901. Afterwards certain citizens
took the matter to the circuit courl
and had the license quashed. 1t was
shown that Beebe Is an incorporated
town and that there is no separate
voting precinct for the town, but the
town and township are to be included
in one precinct, the voting place fol
which Is in town. At the general
election in September, 1900 major
ity OF the voters in White county
voted for license" and a majority oil
the voters in Union township, in which
the town of Beebe is included. also
voted for license, but no separate
election was held for the town.
In his opinion Mr.. Justice Riddick
said; 1.-THE circuit court in this case
quashed the order of the county court
granting license to sell liquors in
Beebe, on the ground that no separate
election was held in the town on the
question of granting license, the
court holding that an election must
be held in an incorporated town sep
arate from. the township and that a
majority of the votes cast for the
town must be in favor of license be-
fore license to sell liquors in the town
can be granted. aF
"The decision of this question de-
ponds upon a construction of the act
of March 8, 1879, and the amendment
thereto made by the act Of March 10,
1881. ..
THE act of 1881 amended only two
sections out Of the twenty of the act
of 1879. The statute as amended re-
quired the question Of license or no
license to be submitted to the electors
of each county, and provided that a
majority Of the votes cast on the ques-
ton in the county be against license
that it should be unlawful to grant
license at any place In the county un'
til after the next general election, bot
If majority In any county voted for
license. then license could be granted
In any township, town or ward OF
city in such county,
ut seems obvious that the main
purpose of the amendment was to re-
quire the vote Of the whole county to
be taken on the question. Previous
to this amendment II one ward or
township in county, however small,
voted In favor of license IL was lawful
to license the sale of liquors there,
although nfne-tenths of the votes OF
the whole county may have been op-
posed to license and may have voted
against It, This was changed by The
amendment SO as to require not only
a majority vote in the township or
ward, but also I'm the county before
license could b@ granted. The amend
ment also provided that license saiUuld
only be granted to persons of good
moral character, over the age OF 2f
years These wa'e the chief purposes
of the amendment. A.
"In this case the circuit court doubt
less based its Judgment on that pro-
vision Of the amendment to the effect
that II the vote in the county was In
favor of license, then license might De-
granted In ANY township, town or
ward of city in such county where
the majority of the votes cast upon the
question was for license but in no
other This language, II it stood by
itself, would probably support the
Judgment of the circuit court, but 1t
must be taken in connection with the
whole act Of 1879 not specifically
amended.
Reading the whole act as amended,
IN Is plain that the legislature did not
intend to require separate vote In
each town in the state, or even In the
Incorporated towns, Or 1t would have
said 30; all 1t required was vote by
the whole county in favor Of license
US a prerequisite to tho granting Of II.
eenses.
"The statute, as II now stands, pro.
vides that the question Of license shall
be submitted to the electors OF the
county at each general election for
state officers, 1t provides that such
election shall be held at the same
zine and place and in the same man.
ner as other elections and makes no
change in the voting precincts
I'VE therefore conclude that II was
not the intention OF the legislature or
the meaning Of the statute that
separate vote should be held in those
towns which were noe separate cleo
tlon precincts. Every ward and every
township was at the time these stat.
utcs were enacted, and is still, a sep.
arate election precinct, and It is there.
fore necessary under these statutes
before license to sell liquors can be
granted In a ward or township, that
u majority vote shouiH be cast therein
IN favor OF license lint Il was and is
the rare exception FOE q town to be a
separate election precinct. and we do
not think this statute intended to re.
quire separate elections In those towns
which are not separate election pre-.
cincts. n the town is not separate
election precinct and majority Of the
electors Of the county and township
In which the town Ia situated voted In
favor OF license then license TO Rscp
q saloon In the town may be granted,
It being In such case only part Of
the township"