Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-12-26
Supreme Court Decision Does
Not Make Such Action as
Taken Here Necessary
COPY OF DECISION RECEIVED
Consent of Resident Free Holders
Within Fifty Feet of All Saloons,
Must Be Filed With County Auditor
Each Taxable Year-counci's Orig
inaI Consent Good Until Revoked.

After all the enlightenment OF an at.
torney representing the saloonists OF
the city, as to what the law was re-
garding the city councils con-
sent to operate saloons under
the mulct law, given before re-
cent session of the council, it appears
from the decision, that such consent,
on the part Of the council is unneces-
sary, and that 1t specifically states that
no new statement of consent is neces-
sary.
Had the decision been looked into
before the matter was brought before
the council, an unnecessary amount OF
could have been avoided. A well known
attorney who, altho not interested on
either side of the controversy, but
wanting to know of the decision from
. professional interest, sent to the SUI
preme court for a copy, and in his
opinion, all the action before the coun-
Gil was needless.
The Fayette county case, on which
decision by the supreme court the local
action was based, was entitled Mike
was an action brought against the
court on writ Of certiorari, question:
Ing the validity Of an order finding the
plaintiff guilty OF violating an injunc-
ton against the illegal sale of intox-
icating liquors. The opinion was writ
ten by Judge Mccain. The decree
against Conway was entered in 1897,
and in January, 1906, proceedings in
contempt were brought against the
plaintiff, who was at the time engaged
in the saloon business under the mulct
law. The plaintiff alleged, upon. this
hearing, that he was then engaged in
a legal business, under the mulct law;
that the city council had authorized,
by its consent, that he engage in such
business; and that he had filed the
proper consent Of the property owners
within fifty feet of his saloon. 1t was
agreed that the council had given the
proper consent, and that the consent
Of the property owners had been Sc
cured, and that the plaintiff was not
violating an injunction against illegal
sales when he was running business
according to law.
Property Sale Doesn't Carry Consent.
The question that arose, however,
and which the court decided, was re-
garding the holding of q property own
er who had never given his consent,
but who had bought the property from
one who had given his consent. One
Miles had purchased a piece of prop
erty within fifty feet of the plaintiffs
place Of business, and had never given
his consent. The court goes on to say
"that in January Of each year the one
who pays the taxes on the saloon prop
erty must file a written consent of all
resident free holders within fifty feet
and adds:
"We do not hold that the plaintiff
should have secured a new statement
OF consent, but do hold that the pur-
chaser Of the property, from an owner
who has consented to the maintenance
OF a saloon within fifty feet does not
take the property subject to the con-
sent of the grantor."
Matter Of Revocation.
The state law is plain on the matter
of revocation Of consent to operate sa-
looms, and even tho the sale OF a piece
Of property within the fifty foot limit
does not carry the consent of the pur-
chaser, such consent Of the new pur-
chaser does not have to be gained un-
til the year is up, or until the owner
goes to pay his taxes. He must then
have a complete new statement of
consent of the property owners. Neither
is revocation by the ordinary process
until the beginning Of the
taxable year after the consent has been
given. Only the consent of resident
free holders is necessary on the part of
the saloonists, and the original resolu-
ton Of consent of the city council holds
until it is revoked. according to the
opinion of the attorney quoted, upon a
careful study Of the decision and Law.