The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1909-10-24
Every Town in Lee County Excepting
keokuk and Fort Madison is
Effected by the De-
cree.
MULcT LAW ENFORCED
Petitions Of Consent in the County
Were Found Not to be Of
the Required
Length.

The announcement, first made
by The Gate City to the people
of Lee county, of the decision
of the Supreme court Of the state
in the Lee county saloon caAs, Great
ed considerable interest Throughout,
the county in the smaller cities effect
ed by the decision.
The effect of the decision in brief,
is that the mulct law must be obeyed
in every town, the same as it is in
force in Keokuk and Fort Madison.
The following from the Des MONIES
Register and Leader of Thursday viii
prove of interest to many:
A number of Lee county saloons (out-
side of Fort Madison and Keokuk) are
operating without proper authority
from the voters, according to decis.
ion handed down by the Iowa supreme
court yesterday. The court holds that
their statements of consent filed with
the county board of supervisors in
1905 are insufficient, thereby reversing
the decision of Judge Bank of the dis
trict court of Lee county.
In the opinion, which was written
by Judge Sherwin, the supreme court
lays down the proposition that there
is no authority in law for the adding
of additional names to petitions of
consent after they have been fled
with the board of supervisors. To
permit such proceeding, says Judge
Sherwin, would be to defeat the very
purpose of the law. 1t a saloon
keeper learned that his original state
ment of consent would be insufficient
he could go out and secure additional
names and file them with the board
in order to give him the required 65
per cent Of the voters.
1t is also held that the statute re-
quires the statement to show the
date of the signature of each signer
and 1t is not sufficient to attach an
affidavit showing that the signatures
were all made within a certain period
1t is further held that the names ap.
pearing on the petition of consent
must be identical with the correspond
ing names on the poll books and that
all the names on the petition must
also appear in the poll books of the
last election
In the Lee county cases the sa-
looms filed their petitions OF consent
with the board of supervisors Novem-
Der 10, 1905. On November 20 the
board began the canvass of the state
ments and on December 9 passed a
resolution declaring them sufficient.
Between November 13 and the date of
publishing the notice of the passage of
the resolution by the board thirty
three additional statements were filed
containing 200 additional names. The
board of supervisors counted them as
/ art of the original petition This, the
supreme court says, should not have
been done.
On the petitions filed November 1S
there were 232 names not found on the
1904 poll books and ninety names APP.
pearfng on the petitions were not
identical with the corresponding
names on the poll lists. There were
also seventy Withdrawals from the
petitions after they were filed. The
saloonist4 set up the claim that they
should be allowed to file additional
names to take the place of the with
drawals, but the supreme court holds
there Is no merit in that contention.
H. T. Scott brought the action to
test the sufficiency of the petition.