Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-07-06

What the Iowa supreme court will
say as to the meaning of the Moon
law is a question that only the Iowa.
supreme court itself can answer.
What the legislature meant to do with
the Moon law In the way of regulat-
ing the number of saloons in wet
towns is, however, reasonably clear.
The trainers of the Moon law In
tended that the law should 60 into
effect July L.. 1911, and that after that;
date the number of saloons shoulds
gradually be reduced until the limit OF |
one to each 1000 population wasS
reached. It was also intended that II
the city council cared to reduce the
number to one for each 1000 popu-
lation in renewing consents prior to
July l, it could do 80. but such sud
den reduction was not made manda-
tory. This Is the obvious meaning OF
section 2, which says: I'm all citiess
and towns where a greater number Of
persons than are provided in section
/ now hold resolutions OF consent ia
sell intoxicating liquor at retail, IL
shall not be mandatory, under the
provisions of this act, for the city on
town councils to withdraw q sufIicient
number of such consents to comply.
with the provision Of section here
of, and such resolutions of consent
may be renewed by city or town
councils to persons holding, the same
or their assigns or grantees. unless
said resolution of consent shall be-
come imperative by reason of the
person holding the same violating any,
Of the laws of the state, civil or crim-l
inal, relating to the sale or dispositionl
OF Intoxicating liquor.
The trainers of the Moon law did
not intend the law to make any
change regarding the petitions OF
consent under which, the resolutione
Of consent are granted. The filing OF
new petitions of consent this year
was required under the old mulct law, i
which had been amended to make alEi
petitions of consent expire July l..
1911, and required them to be REL
newed thereafter every flve years
The plain intent Of section 2, AZ
above quoted, regarding the renewal
Of existing consent to sell, il muddledl
by section 4, which provides that
nothing in this act shall operate to
extend any consent now or hereafter
granted beyond the time at which,
such consent shah expire, as by law
provided" What does this meAn13
Down at Des Moines, Corporation
Counsel Byers construes 1t to mean
that after July 1, 1911, consents cam
not be valid in excess Of one for each
1000 population. But this contra
diets the plain provision Of section a
that ali existing consents may BE- rel
newed, except In the case Of v1ofatoro
of the law, or in the event that the
city council uses its discretion TO cuta
down the number. Is It not unroS
likely that section 4 is merely say.a
ing clause, intended to invaltdate an
consents that may not be renewed In
accordance with the provisions Of sec-y
ton? As saving clause 1t woui6V
apply to q case in which city coun-a
ell decided to reduce the number OF
consents to one for each 1000 pCpu-
lation without waiting for the slow
process of elimination after law viola.
ton. In such case the council would
have exercised discretion granted in
section 2, and the consent hofderx
would be barred from claiming right
to any additional renewals.
Lawyers may discuss the meaning
Of these apparently conflicting Sec
lions, but the last word VIII come
from the state supreme court. Usual.
iy the supreme court has decided all
such issues on the side OF the strictes1
possible interpretation.-The Sioux
City Journal.