The Monticellonian., 1901-04-26
Important D.el.,op on Liquor Llcer...

week, in the case of Ross vs. Moore ct al. In January the county court of White county granted a license to c. T. Ross to sell liquors in Beebe dur ing 1901. Afterwards certain citizens took the matter to the circuit court and had the license quashed It 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 for which is in town. At the general election in September, 1900, a major ity of the voters in White county voted @for license" and a majority of 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 MT. Justice Riddick said: 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
 "The decision of this question de pends upon a construction of the act of March 8, 1879. and the amendment thereto made by the act of March 19, 1881.
 .'The act of 1881 amended only two sections out of the twenty of the act of 1879. The statute as amended re- 1 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- tion 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, but if majority in any county voted for 1 license. then license could be granted in any township. town or ward of a city in such county.
 "It 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 if one ward or township in a county, however small, voted in favor of license it was lawful to license the sale of liquors there, although nine=tenths of the votes of the whole county may have been op- posed to license and may have voted l against it. This was changed by the amendment so as to require not only a majority vote in the township or ward, but also in the county, before license could be granted. The amend ment also provided that license should only be granted to persons of good moral character, over the age of 21 years These were the chief purposes 1 of the amendment.
 ''In this case the circuit court doubt less based its judgment on that pro vision of the amendment to the effect l slldI II lIt sOLC III LilV NoullIy htio III 1 favor of license. then license might be 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, if it stood by itself, would probably support the judgment of the circuit court, but it must be taken in connection with the whole act of 1879 not specifically amended.
 Reading the whole act as amended, it 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 it would have said so all it required was a vote by the whole county in favor of license as a prerequisite to the granting of li- eenses.
 The statute, as it 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. It provides that such election shall be held at the same time and place and in the same man her as other elections and makes no change In the voting precincts.
 We therefore conclude that it was not the intention of the legislature or the meaning of the statute that a separate vote should be held in those towns which were not separate cleo tion precincts. Every ward and every township was, at the time these stat utes 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 majority vote should be cast therein in favor of license. But 1t was and is the rare exception for a 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 If the town is not separate election precinct and a majority of the electors of the county and township in which the town is situated voted in favor of license then license to keep saloon in the town may be granted. it being in such case only a part of the township"
 Nafurui pOIitpncss