The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1911-09-07
MAY CHARGE FOR APPLICATION
Hunters in Kenosha County Must Have
Applications Filled Out Before the
License to Hunt May be Issued for
Dollar Bill.

"Dollar Bill'' hunting licenses in
Kenosha county got bad bump this
morning when District Attorney Henry
j. Hastings received an opinion from
Attorney General L. H. Bancroft which
upholds in every particular the position
taken by County Clerk Russell Fl. Jones
in the matter Of issuing the licenses
and the attorney general in overriding
the holding of his deputy holds that
the county clerk not only has the right
charge for making the applications for
licenses but these fees need not be
turned over to the county. County
Clerk Jones was in conference with the
state game warden on Wednesday and
later in the week he will issue a form
al statement in regard to the matter.
The decision of the attorney general
will be interesting to hunters even if
it does make it plain that they will
be forced to pay more for licenses
than in previous years. The opinion
in full follows:
August 20, 1911.
Mr.. Henry J. Hastings,
District Attorney, Kenosha, Wis.
Dear Sir
I have before me your favor of the
18th in which you ask for further in
formation regarding the opinion given
to Hon. j. II. Sholts, state fish and game
warden, as to the right of the county
clerk to charge $1.50 for hunting Ii
censes.
You state now that your county
clerk is not charging $3.50 for the Ii
cense, but that he charges fifty cents
for the two oaths attached to the ap-
plication and that this is done in con-
formity to resolution adopted by the
county board and you state that the
extra fifty cents is kept by the. county
aud that the clerk gets nothing out of
it.
Section 149Ss Of the statutes, as
found in the supplement for 1905 pro
vides for issuing Of hunting licenses
and among other things provides: The
application for such license shall show
that the Icensee is resident of this
state, shall give his residence and his
postoffice address, shall contain a de-
seription of his person, and such other
information as shall be required by the
secretary Of state and the fish and game
warden, shall be verified by the affidavit
of the applicant and some resident of
the county other than himself acquaint-
ed with the facts as set forth in the
application. The county clerk shall re-
ceive with each such application for
license the sum of one dollar, etc.
From this it appears that it is the
duty Of the applicant to present the
application duly prepared. It is no part
of the duty of the county clerk to pre-
pare the application or to administer
the oaths. 1t not being any part of his
duty as county clerk to do this am Of
the opinion that any fees received by
him for so doing belong to him and not
to the county. Under section 181 of
the statutes notaries are allowed
twenty-five cents for drawing an afida-
Wit. There being two afddavits on the
application any official authorized to
administer the oath would be entitled
to make the same charge. It follows
that the charge of fifty cents for MAX
ing the application is not an improper
charge, but I do not believe that the
extra fifty cents should be paid into
the state treasury.
I am sending you today the report
of the attorney general for 1906. The
edition of this report for 1908 is ex-
hausted. The latest edition of the
town laws was issued in 1907.
Very truly yours,
L. H. Bancroft,
by W. W. Gilman, Attorney General.