Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-04-21
AFFAIRS At SOUTH OMAHA
Decision Of Supreme court Interests Saloon
Keepers Ten Dollars Worth,
ONE MORE FEE FOR PUBLICATION TO PAY
Report Current that Issue of Fifty
Thousand Dollars worth of Addi-
tiOnal sewer Bonds f. 20
he EniOined.

notice OF application for liquor license,
appealed from Douglas county, the SUI
preme court reversed the decision OF the
lower court and held THAT in cities of
the first class containing more than 5000
and less than 5000 inhabitants the notice
must be published in the paper provided
by section 1872. as well as in the paper
having the greatest circulation in the
county. This gives effect to both acts, and,
there being no repugnancy between them.
we think that both should be enforced"
Hedgreen was granted license to sell
liquor in South Omaha from May 1, 1906,
for one year. He published his notice In
The Omaha Evening Bee. Tanner pro-
tested against the issuance of the license
because the applicant had not publisheA
his license in a daily newspaper published
in South Omaha, and alleged that his own
paper had been issued in said city for
hfty-two consecutive weeks prior to April
1. 1906, and had bona fde circulation of
not less than 200 subscribers, as provided
by section 1872, chapter II. Of the session
laws of 1903 known as the charter for
cities of not less than 5000 and not more
than $1,000 inhabitants. The Board OF Fire
and Police Commissioners overruled his
objections and the board was upheld by
the district court.
The supreme court. Commissioner Dufie
writing the opinion, said
THAT part Of section 1872 relating to the
publication of applications for liquor Ii
censes is in the following language; Pro-
vided that the application for a license
issued under the provisions of this act
shall have been published for three weeks
in a daily newspaper that has been issued
in said city for hfty-two consecutive weeks
prior to the publication of said notice and
had bona fide circulation Of not less than
200 subscribers This act took effect April
g. 1903, and, appellant insists, is a law gov
erning publication of notices of applica-
ton for q license to sell intoxicating
liquors. By a later act, taking effect April
g. 1903, the legislature amended section Is,
chapter so, generally known as the 'Slo-
cumb Liquor law placing the power to
issue liquor licenses in the, Board of Fire
and Police Commissioners in cities of the
metropolitan class and in cities OF the
flrst-class having more than 5000 and less
than 1900 inhabitants, and said amended
section provides that In granting licenses
or permits such corporate authorities in
| cities and villages, and the Board of Fire
and Police Commissioners in such other
cities shall comply with and be governed
| by, all the provisions of this act in re-
| gard to granting licenses, and all the pro-
visions and penalties contained IN this act
shall be applicable to such licenses and
permits and the persons TO whom they are
| granted Section OF the Slocumb law
| provides for the publication Of the notice
Of the application for a license for two
| weeks in a newspaper published in said
| county having the largest circulation
therein, OF, IL no newspaper Is published
in said county. by posting written or
printed notices of said application in FIVE
OF the most public places in the town, pre-
! cinct, village or city in which the bust
ness is to be conducted. Here then, are
two acts Of the legislature relating to pub
fishing notice of application for liquor II
cense, one in a local paper in cities OF the
f1rst-class having more than 25.0OO and less
than 10000 inhabitants and the general
law requiring publication of such notice In
the paper having the largest circulation in
the county. These acts are not repugnant
and the general rule is that where two acts
are not repugnant both acts shall stand.
In such cases there must be an unmis-
taxable intent manifested on the part Of
the Legislature to make the new act a sub
stitute for the old and to contain all the
law on the subject mere similarity in
the provisions OF the two statutes is not
enough TO effect a repeal even though the
similarity may be such as TO cause con-
fusion or Inconvenience" (Vol. q Am. &
Eng Ency, Law ust Ed pp4ss-4, and
cases cited).
The case was sent back for further pro-
ceedings not inconsistent with the decision
rendered.
Report of Another Injunction.
The city officials expected to be served
with another injunction yesterday forbid
ding the issuance of the $4,000 sewer
bonds, the ordinance for which is now
under way before the council. Charles
Cummins is authority for the statement
that the order was sued out before one
of the judges of the district court yesteE-
day morning. He did not say who was
the plaintiff in the action nor which judge
IL was. 1t appears that there is an old
charter provision which declares that
bonds for sewer purposes may not be
issued above $4,000 without submitting
the proposition TO a vote Of the people
This, the plaintiff declared, had never
been repealed, and was therefore still
in effect. 1t was also charged that IL
was the intention to return to the Union
Stock Yards company the sum advanced
by that company and which is still in the
hands of the city treasurer Gnapportioned.
AS soon as the mayor heard of the
the clerk Of the district court to see II
such a petition had been filed with him.
Mr.. Broadwell declared that there was
no such matter filed as yet. 1t may be
that the papers are still in the hands
of the attorney who is preparing them.
II so Il likely will be served on the city
ofhcials today or before the meeting OF
the council Monday evening. In discuss
ing the question Of the new injunction the
mayor expressed considerable WEAKNESS
ith the struggle TO make some head
way in the city improvements
Talk About school Board EmbrOEIiO.
Many opinions we're expressed yesterday
concerning the affairs Of the South Omaha
Board Of Education. One party was re-
ioicing over the fact that the board had
been restrained in time to prevent the i'm
mediate election OF teachers. and charging
all sorts of Interior motives on the ma
jority while the other side Of the contro-
versy was Just as loud in praise OF the
action of the board and regretted only that
Il had not carried the motion to elect
teachers before the injunction was served
They claim II is no more than just retri-
button on the minority that the teachers
should be elected. for the reason that since
the organization Of the board last time