The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1910-09-09
STATE STATUTES JUMBLED
Saloon Situation in Trip County Has
Disclosed a Queer Boggle


Lamro-One Of the neatest sets
OF complications that eve helped
to demonstrate the jumbled condition
of the average state statute has de-,
veloped in an attempt to conform the
saloon situation in Trip county to
regulations established by the legis-
lature of 1907. All of the situations
here are entirely new, as these are the
first actions under the provisions OF
the law regulating the number of sa-
looms in towns having a population
of less than 1000.
In the state law the special method
of a~scertaining the population of
towns is according to the last state
or federal census" All Of the towns
in Trip county have come into ex-
istence within the past 8 months. No
question was raised as to the right OF
these towns to regulate their saloon
question until a personal fight precipi-
tated the issue at Winner. Eight sa-
looms are licensed and in operation
at Winner, but the county board re-
fused to grant a license to the ninth
applicant, William Peoples of Bone
steel. He started a fight against the
alleged excess of saloons.
Because there was no official record
in existence as to the population OF
the town, the Winner saloon men con-
tended that it could not be assumed
the town did not have a population OF
1000, allowing local control Of the ga
loon question. Judge Trip concluded
that he had a right to take judicial
notice of the city's probable popula-
ton, based on a private local census,
and submitted a ruling for the elimt-
nation of six of the existing saloons.
The effect of this decision is now be-
ing extended to other towns of the
county and lines are now being drawn
for wal against the saloons in Winner
and Carter.
One of the most peculiar features of
the situation, however, has developed
in the effort to get rid of the surplus
saloons at Winner in harmony with
the rulings of Judge Trip. While
the decision specifies that the coun-
ty board had the right to issue only
two licenses it actually issued eight
and there is much dispute as to how
these licenses may be revoked and as
to which ones shall be revoked. On
a point raised by Attorney j. r. Cash
of Bonesteel and sustained by Judge
Trip it is held that the state law
does not give the county board the
power to revoke saloon licenses and
that such power rests with the city
board. AS the matter stands, so far
as the county board is concerned, II
the licenses are illegal, the board is
without jurisdiction to act, and If the
licenses are held to be legal on the
appeal now pending the board Is
equally handicapped. 1t should be
explained, as an additional element
in the situation, that the county board
is favorable to cutting down the num-
Der of saloons in the various towns,
while the city boards desire to stand
pat.
1t is the claim of the saloon men
that they will be able to drag the
question along until these towns can
organize as cities above the 1000 class
and that they will then be in the Gear.
No misgivings are held on the popu-
lations question. Dallas is cited as an
example of the easy way to popula-
ton honors, where city organization
is desired. The claim is made that
Dallas had only an actual population
of about $50 when the special census
gave it a showing of LOO people.