The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1909-05-14

that run dining cars in Indiana, are
wondering where they stand since so
many of the counties of the state are
voting themselves dry. Liquors are sold
on dining cars on all the roads over
which they are run, and without the
sale OF liquors, it is said. the dining
car business would be a failure. both
from the standpoint Of making money
and as an attraction to the travelling
public. For that reason the roads are
anxious to find out whether they are
to be permitted to sell liquors on their
cars. while they are passing through dry
counties in the state.
Question Is Raised.
A law firm in Chicago has written a
letter to the Attorney General asking
him for an opinion on the question.
Attorney General Bingham is out of the
city just now, being in the east gather
ing evidence to be used in the pure
food cases and in the case against the
fire insurance trust, and when the let
ter of the Chicago lawyer arrived it
was given into the hands of Assistant
Attorney General Cavins, for answer.
Cavins is looking into the question and
will give an opinion as soon as he can
find out just what to tell them.
There is a law on the statue books.
placed there by the Legislature at the
session of 1907 which requires the rail-
roads to pay to the state a license fee
Of $1,000 a year for the privilege of SELL
ing liquors on their dining cars within
the state. Last year nine roads paid
in their thousand dollars and took out
the state licenses. This year. however,
only four roads have thus far taken
out the license, and it is said that the
rest of them are waiting to find out
just where they stand in the matter be-
fore they pay their money to the state.
This license is issued by the Auditor
of State.
Does Local Option AppIyg
The county local option law was pas
sed since the one requiring the rail-
roads to take out the licenses for din
ing cars, and many of the counties
along the lines of the roads have gone
dry since then. Now the question arises
whether the local option law applies
to them or not. If the roads are not
allowed to sell liquors to their passen-
gers in the dry counties of the state
they do not wish to pay their money
for a state license, because there would
be little territory left on their lines
in which they could sell liquors.
1t is an important question and Ca
wins viii take plenty of time In which
to prepare an opinion.
Court Rules ON Remembrance.
The Supreme Court, yesterday, de-
cided saloon remonstrance case with
out deciding any Of the questions in
volved In 1t, and it all happened be-
cause the anti-saloon people failed to
file a brief in the case. The case was
| that Of James C. Rose of Roanoke,
Huntington county Rose applied for
a license to operate saloon in Roam
| oke and a remonstrance was filed
against granting the license. He was
kept out of his license. About the
| end of the two years period of the re-
monstrance Rose applied again and in
duced q number Of the demonstrators to
withdraw their names from the original
remonstrance, thus reducing the num-
Der left below the number required by
| the law to prevent the issuance Of the
| license. A new remonstrance was filed
before the two years of the old one
| had expired and Rose Insisted that the
new one could not be considered by the
1 commissioners Until t4lCI IllS CAplTd'
ton of the first one, and that the f1rst
one was no longer valid because it die
not contain a sufficient number o.
names.
| Judge Jordan, of the Supreme Court
said in his opinion that the suit raised
several important questions, first, a:
to whether the person who signed tn,
| names of the demonstrators to the re
monstrance In question was duly auth
orized to do so as attorney in fact
| second, in respect to his right to serv,
as such under his original appointment
Il third, as to whether under the facts
/ certain demonstrators were legal vot
/ ers of the township at the time thu
remonstrance in question was filed. Il
fact, said Judge Jordon, the complain
/ foraly bristIes with points on the rul
ings of the lower courts.
Il Fail to File A Brief.
But the Supreme Court has a rul
which requires parties to an appeal t
file a brief of their arguments, an,
failure to file a brief makes part.
liable to have his suit dismissed or de
cided against him. In this case the re
monstrators failed to file a brief, Blu
relied on the rulings made by the lowe
court to sustain their position, for thf
reason the Supreme Court decide
against them without deciding any o
the questions involved. So it can b
seen how close the court came to set
Ting some of the most important ques
tions in the anti-liquor laws and at tn
same time left the whole business u
in the air.