The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-03-27
cowLEs ON LIQUOR PERMITS.
Attorney for Temperance Union Re-
views the Osborne Case.


To the Editor of the State Journal
| If you can afford space for some
thing further on this subject going
more to the merits of the case than
your story of Friday you will render
a public service by giving publicity to
the present administration of the
| liquor permit law, as illustrated by
the Osborne hearing. The most ma
terial portions of the statute are, in
substance, as follows:
The applicant shall file with the
probate judge a petition signed by
himself and by twenty-five reputable
freeholders having the qualification Of
electors. and twenty-five reputable
of the ward where the business is To-
Gated.
The petition shall set forth, % the
location of the business, CD that the
applicant is a person of good moral
chara cter, and (3) does not use in
toxicating liquor as d beverage, and
ca can be entrusted with the Fespon-
sfbility of selling the same; that (5l
the applicant is registered phar-|
macist, and CO. is lawfully and in
good faith engaged personally IN the
business of a druggist as the pro-
prietor thereof, and CD is well versed
in his profession; and that CD he has
stock of drugs of the value of at
least 1000.
of the hearing for at least thirty days
next prior to the date set.
The applicant shall be required to
prove the truthfulness of each and
every statement contained in such
petition.
II satisfied that the signatures to
such petition were signed by such per-
sons, and that such petitioners are cit
liens of such ward. and that the state
ments in such petition are all true, the
probate judge may in his discretion
grant a permit
The probate judge shall notify the
Ill 1. IT, Il
the county attorney shall appear and
advise concerning the granting of the
same and the approval of the bond.
The probate judge, for this purpose, |
sits not as a judicial officer, but as a /
special tribunal. executive in its ma
ture, and has jurisdiction to proceed |
with a hearing only when it has been /
made to appear that there is before /
him a petition signed as stated above, /
and that notice has been duly pub !
lished. The principal evidence on this /
hearing was that of the applicant He /
testified that he circulated the petit /
ton, and that all the persons named K
thereon were residents of the Third /
ward; that the business is located at 1
S34 Kansas avenue; that he is reg
istered pharmacist; that he is the /
owner of the business, and that the /
drugs in stock are worth some $1,000; I
that he is not addicted to the use of
liquor, does not often drink intoxi- /
eating liquor. and never gets drunk.
|
was also put in evidence
On Oss-examination of the appH-
cant he testified that liquor did not
agree with him; that he took a drink
of beer perhaps once a week and
drink of whisky perhaps once a
month; that he was not a total abb
stainer; that he had been employed
in the drug store at this same place
for some three years by E. L. Evans,
and by his predecessor, Croker;
that Evans gave M L. Campbell a
bill of sale of the stock about noon
On February IA, and that he bought
It of Campbell a half an hour or more
later; that he paid part cash, and gave
notes for the balance secured by chat
eel mortgage on the stock: and then,
On exclamation of the question by his
tel mortgage, but agreed to give
ehattel mortgage if he did not raise
he cash shortly
Campbell and Evans had been sub
ooenaed to testify in rebuttal but they
were not present, and the foregoing is
the substance of evidence introduced.
OF the jurisdictionaI facts 1t is to be '
observed that there was evidence only
as to the publication of notice and the
residence of the petitioners in the ward.
To authorize the hearing OF the petit
ion at all there should have been proof
also that the petitioners signed; that | ]
-bev were reputable persons; that the
men were freeholders in the ward; that J
.hev had the qualifications of electors;
md that the women were p years of t
age. I
,roof as to the truthfulness of the sec
md. fourth or seventh allegation The {
bird was proved false by the adrnis- Z
SONS OF the applicant himself {
Fhe judge announced that he
was in doubt as to the sixth. The per- +
nit was granted; and Without taking
occasion to advise with the county at :
The number of permits in this coun- !
" had run up to A when Mr.. Dexter, :
of the State Temperance
-Tnion. began attending the hearings for :
iouor permits. The multiplicity of drug {
torres had gradually drawn the great |
majority of the druggists of this CITY
nto violation of the law with reference
q the sale of liquor. The location for [
which this permit was asked is one OF z
he most notorious in the city. It had