Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1909-10-29
RUN
TILL APRIL |
Licenses Issued Prior to
May 6 will Remain
Of Full Force and
Effect.

''drv," there has been considerable
talk as TO when the saloons in
Montpelier would have to close.
Some have interpreted the law re,
lative TO the time Of closing, after
a county votes ''dry," one way
and others another way. In order
to settle this point, Attorney A, b
Cough recently addressed the fol
lowing letter on the subject to
County Attorney Harris:
Montpelier, Idaho, Oct. 81, 1909.
Chas. E. Harris, Esq,
County Attorney,
Montpelier, Idaho,
Dear Sir: AZ attorney for a mum ber
of the liquor dealers of Bear Lake
county in the matter, l address this
communication TO you to ascertain your
ruling as to tie time when they will
be expected to close their respective
places of business by reason of the
county having voted ''dry" in the
recent local option election.
Under Sec. of the local option law
when county votes dry all licenses
issued after the passage of the act be-
come void in ninety days after the elec-
tiou and no license issued prior to the
passage of the act is affected thereby.
As you are aware, this act passed both
houses of the legislature and was APP
proved by the governor during the
month of February, 1909. 1t carried
no emergency clause, hence did not
become law, affective, until the fore
part of May, 1909. sixty days after the
adjournment of the legislature. In
April, 1909, after this act had passed
both houses of the legislature and been
approved ny the governor and before il
became law, the loird of ,unty com
missioners granted liquor licenses to {
number of liquor dealers of the county
for one year from that date. s,
1t is clear that the question is as t.
whether or not these dealers shall
close their respective places of bust
ness on the 1st of December, 1909, o
COnbluub OuSluCSS uHbil tnClk AACCnBO
expire, April, 1910, depends on thu
proper construction of the phrase "afte
the passage of this act,' whether
means the time when the act passe
both houses and is approved by tn
governor, or the time when it become
affective.
AS sou are no doubt aware, thi
identical question was before our Sr
preme Court in the case of Schneide
VS. Hussey, Idaho, g. 10 make it clea
the court there used the following lans
uage: THE question is as to whetht
the words passage of the act mea
when 1t is signed by abe governor,
4 when by law the act goes into effect
And the court in that ease held th,
these words meant the time when d
act went into effect saying: "Any 9th
construction of the words would gil
life and action to this section before
can have any" To the same effect 8
Rogers VS.. Vass, iowa, 405; Hardin
vs. People, ID Pac. 727; State vs.. Benz
81 N. w., 348
IL SoemS To me OudU t0Ib decision
our own Supreme Court is decisive
the question, and that these people q
entitled to continue the sale of into,
eating liquors until their licenses expil
In CONCLUSION, beg to state that il
matter og Importance to these peol
t. know at an early date whether
not the county authorities will recon
their licenses aftr the expiration of niI
days from date of said election.
Yours very truly.
A. B. GoUG
Mr.. Harris Immediately refer
Mr.. Coughs letter 10 Attorr
General Dougall, and asked i
official for an opinion on the gu
ton. The attorney general, thror
his assistant, Jos. H. Peterson,
piled TO Harris request as folio
Boise, Idaho, Oct %, 19(
Charles F. Harris, ESD,
Z County Attorney,
Montpelier, Idaho,
Dear Sir: Replying to your lette
the 2lst, | would state that this q
tion has been presented to the offic
Mr.. Mcconnell, county attorney of