The daily sentinel., 1908-08-05


the balance and the indications are
that when the true meaning is in
terpreted by the supreme court it
will apply to precincts only and not
to wards, towns, cities and counties
as was the original intention of those
who desired its enactment, so says
Alva Swain. the state editor of the
Pueblo Chieftain, in special dis
patch to The Chieftain from Denver
today.
Continuing the special says:
1t would seem that it is almost
impossible to secure the enactment of
a reform measure in this state unless
the opponents succeed in interposing
joker that practically takes the
real intention of the honest Jaw max
ers out of the body of the bill.
When this law was before the leg
islature winter before last 1t was
maintained tnat under its provisions
the question of local option could be
submitted either by precincts, by
wards, by towns or by cities or by
counties and it was understood and
the impression prevailed that if pre-
sented by the larser political divis-
ions of the state, such as counties,
wards, towns or cities, that major
ity of the votes cast in the large poll
tical divisions controlled that entire
division. 1t now develops that the
attorney general has rendered an
opinion to the governor. to the effect
that if a precinct submits the ques-
tion of local option in ward where
the question is submitted by the
ward also that IL the precinct goes
wet it can stay wet irrespective of
how the ward went. The same claim
is being maintained before the SUI
wi hx, h., oil nf
Denver and they succeeded in getting
a supersedeas today staying the ex-
ecution of a judgment against sa-
loon man where the ware went dry
and the individual precinct went wet
and he continued to do business.
The following will show the claim
of the saloon people:
In this city the required number
of residents in ward 2 petitioned
the city council to submit the ques-
tion of local option for the entire
ward. The saloon men Immediately
sent out a petition and secured the
required number of signatures to
submit the question in those partic-
ular precincts where their saloons
existed. The result of the election
was that ward IL, as ward, went
dry. The precincts where the saloons
were located went wet and the sa-
loon men claim that through this
second presentation of the question
to the people that the vote in the pre-
cincts controlled these precincts ire
spective OF what the vote in the ward
was.
Boiled to its logical conclusion
the result is that if this position is
sustained by the supreme court it
will be useless to attempt to secure
local option for either a ward,
town, a city or county by the ma
jority vote. All that the saloon men
will have to do is to secure second
petition for those precincts in which
the saloons were located and the
officials must suOn,Ir both petitions
at once and if the precincts go wet
they stay wet irrespective of how the
entire ward, city, town or county, as
the case may be, goes.
In the case at issue the question
was submitted by the wards and the
saloon people through a second petit
ton submitted it in their precincts.
The local option people started suit
against the saloon men for continu-
ing after the ward went dry. They
won in the lower court and today the
saloon men asked for supersedeas
on the ground that the law provides
that the submission may be by pre-
cincts or by wards and that there is
nothing to prevent a second submis-
sion by an independent precinct even
though the submission is made by
the entire ward and the vote on both
can be held at the same time.
In granting the supersedeas yes
terday Judge Gabbert stated that the
question was debatable one, SO
much 30 that the court would be
justified in preventing the execution
of the lower courts order until af-
ter the entire matter had been pre-
scented and decided. If the supreme
court sustains this decision, the law
will be practically useless because
wherever a larger political division
desires to do away with saloons and
submit to a vote the saloon people
can resubmit the downtown precincts
where the saloons always exist and
wnere they can Always control and
by the precinct vote retain the sa-
looms in existence. The residents of
a ward can never control as o ward,