Weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1908-1929, 1911-06-14

became a fact yesterday morning,
when Judge Kent denied an applica.
ton for a writ Of review asked for
by A. A. Gibson of Tempe In IA
| action against the Board Of Super
visors, II being the contention of
the applicant that the board had ex-
ceeded it's duty In ordering the late
local option election for the town Of
Tempe, seeing that two years had not
yet elapsed since the previous cleo
ton, at which prohibition was de-
fcstcd, says the Phoenix Republican.
The question was regarded by law
ycrs as very close one. Under the
original law IL was provided that a
local option election could not be
held within the same territorial lin.
its within two years after such IN
election. The amended law provid.
ing for segregation and substituting
clear majority for two-thirds
majority, was held not TO affect that
provision and the court further held
that the election just had was not
within the same territorial limits as
; the former one. in which Tempe went
"wet.v Il was stated yesterday
that the ease would be appealed and
that, IL necessary, II would be car
ried TO the Supreme Court Of the
United States.
The individual most Immediately
affected by the decision is not the
plaintiff, hut Fred Marsh, bartender
nj the Casa Loma bar at Tempe,
who, banking on the righteousness Of
, the contention Of Mr.. Gibson, kept
, his bar open and got himself arrest
ed thirty times. Whatever may be
thought Of Mr.. Marsh's judgment Of
|, the law, IL cannot be charged that
, he has cold feet, for he was taking
long chances.
There is great deal that the
;. county can do TO him now; he can
. he made 20 pay fines, aggrcgating
= $1,000, and be sent 10 Jail. But
there is no disposition on the part
of the district attorneys office = to
take advantage of the position in
/. which the trustful Mr.. Marsh placed
! himself. II was stated yesterday
that IL he would plead guilty 70 one
' Of the charges against him and ac.
cept the $500 fine the other eases
. would be dismissed.
!. Judge Kent's decision follows;
|. "The question in this case Il
J, whether or not the recent prohibi
: ton election, so far rs IL applies "a
!, the corporate limits Of Tempe, wa
a valid election, the contention Of
!, the applicant being that inssmueh Al
!. there was an election for Tempe
= justice precinct less than two year
y ago and the justice precinct Of
a Tempe having voted for prohibition
is and the town Of Tempe against pro
u hibition, that under the inhibition o.
the statute there shall not be . sub
seauent election within the aAm'
prescribed limits for two years, an'
that this precinct election 10 In
valid so far NJ Tempe Is concerned
!, "The statute of 1901 provide
70 that no election shall be held With
d the same prescribed limits within
= two years, but also provides tina
n where an election has been held an
a prohibition has not carried Their
Il may be a subsequent election withil
% two years, provided II 10 not With
- the same territorial limits. Tn
u contention Of tho applicant is tina
Y inasmueh as under the so-ealled seq
- regation act tho towns and elite
!, are permitted TO determine for them
se selves whether or not prohibitio
al shall he In force within the limit
70 Of towns and eities. Tempe haviu
"a 40 decided land decided that Their
.. shall not be prohibitiep within tw
Ii years., there can he no electio
r held In Tempe even though the sles
~ ton be called for = larger territoi
be iai district.
n. ~ am clearly Of the opinion tina
On the expression Of the same PR
" scribed limits means the same tel
ri,orisl limits, and II Is perfect
D. clear that IL II he NOT for the ssl
rcgstion act there 10 nothing in III
he law that would prevent an electio
on being held as often A. petite
RI was filed therefor, provided the ele
~ tion Is not called for the same te
he ritorisl limits. The last election vi
II. called for the whole county. II
xt clear intent Of the Law Of 1901 VI
be that % long a. prohibition did n
nj carry there night b. successive sls
ID. tions provided tho same tsrriteri