The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-09-18
Supreme Court Decides Com
missioners, Trustees or.
Council Can Refuse Liquor
Licenses; Have All Power.
NO COURT CAN INTERFERE
WITH THEIR DECISION
Public Sentiment Can Thor
Oughly Control According to
Decision Just Rendered in
the Morgan County Case,
ENTIRE BENCH A UNIT

TTHAT the city council OF each city.
the board OF trustees Of each
town, nnd the board Of county
commissioners of each county In the
state OF tab have the power 60 refuse
20 Ernnt any or nii applications made
20 them 10 sell liquor. that their power
g. absoi ste. md that court In
trrtcrc with them. o. fhc Eist OF q de-
risiou announced yesterday by the su-
Prennc court Of itch.
The rial effect of the decision o. that
when the people Of any county, town
city IN the state desire 90 stop the
liquor traffic the voters cnn do 30 IN
der the present laws by cIcrtinE n board
81 county commissioners. board Of
town trustees or city council. respect
lively fhuf will carry ouf their wishes
majority OF sentiment In city. town
Or county ~nn do away with the liquor
traffic fu the confinrs OF St. furIsdf~-
tion by eiertinE men who will carry ont
such public scufiruruf- And che hf-hr~f
court Of the sfrfr says there cnn be 40
appeal frcrn th- decision 81 these men
into Whose hands the state delegates
che power 60 Eruut or refuse liquor ~
ccuscs.
Famous Morgan Case.
The decision IVES announced IN che
famous MORGAN county cnsc. ~. 4.
ga, retail iiuuor dealer nt Devils
slide. made application March =, 1909,
Tor renewal 90 hts liquor license. The
commissioners refused 80 30 - On che
ground that they desired 90 stop thr
sale Of liquor On the county. 80 fnr ~
they hnd iuri-dfrfiou- Srnyth appealed
60 the district court. nnd the county
commissioners. n. q. uuffcrE. VI. v.
rriddi-. mud George n. Carter. were or
drrrd 60 giant the license show
cnusc why fhcr shnuld not do 80. Tn
presenting their cane 90 the district
court. the commissioners set m that
~myfh had not conducted IN orderly
house thHt ne hrd sold iiauor ON sun
DAY. and chat the commissioners felt
that NJ was not wise Co permit the sale
Of iiuuor In the country districts OF the
county, outside the towns.
AFTER hcarinE the ease, the district
judge ordered that the commissioners
again consider the license. and that the
question OF policy ~ 90 whether the
sale Of liquor should hr stopped Ia the
county should NOT enter into the matter
before the commissioners. The com
uni~sioncrr fhcr appealed 20 the -u-
prcuar court - the state. The decision
90 yesterday finally settles the matter.
nud gives che people Of the state 8. better
understanding Of one WAY 90 handle the
liquor question. even under the present
laws.
In the opinion. written ~ Justice ID.
-. Straup- In which Justices ,. ". Prick
and W. VI NcCarty concur, he quotes
FROM decision ny judge John VI. Znue
On which the latter SAYS that In con-
~idcrinE any application FOR liquor
license. the city council, the heard 81
trustees ct the county commissioners
have n wide range % discretion In that
they are first 90 consider the general
welfare OF the coum uuity and place
that above the convenience or good Of
the Individual who applies for n license.
The full ferf 90 the supreme courts
opinion. ~ banded down yesterday. fol-
rho plaintiff applied % the distric;
fContinued On Page Niuc)