The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-01
THE LAW Is A PUZZLE.

1t is abundantly evident, as the
courts begin to take hold of the new
liquor law and try to find out what it
means, that it is an intricate puzzle,
extremely doubtful of solution on any
practical basis. Already in The mere
preliminaries of granting licenses, the
courts have run across the provisions
of section nine, which, among other
things. has this; "In addition to the
foregoing, the application shall con
tain a certificate of at least five resi-
dent frceholders Of the voting district
in which the license is to be effective.
to tho effect that each Of the persons
aforesaid personally know the appli
cant. that he is a man OF good moral
character, and that, In their opinion, he
is fit and proper person TO be granted
a lcense.'
The apparent meaning of that is, that
any person desiring TO open or carry
on saloon in any election district,
must have the certificate which is called
for Of at least five resident freeholders
reciting the things required. These
| freeholders so certifying must appar-
emily be actual residents of the voting
district in which the saloon is TO be
established. Every one knows what a
voting district In this city means. The
city is laid of into such districts, and
they are numbered so that each ono
has definite and well known boundaries.
The freeholder signing such certif.
cate must apparently be a resident and
property owner of the voting district
In which the saloon is TO he run. Wheth.
er the realty owned by the freeholder
must be in the district or not is not
clear, apparently this is not required.
But the question is, can a person not
| resident of the voting district, but
owning freehold in il, sign such
certiGcate9 The courts, as a preimi.
| nary proposition have apparently
agreed that where five resident free
holders cannot be found within the
district, freeholders outside Of the dis.
trict may sign the certificate If it is
TO be held that the property upon
which the freehold is based is not
necessarily within the voting district.
and also that the freeholder is not nee
essarIly a resident of the voting dis
trict then there would appear to be no
particular point in mentioning the vot-
ing district in this connection at all
However, on both points the courts
will doubtless give forth their final
judgment later on. AS to the neces"
sity of the freeholder residing within
the district, the courts have tenta-
lively held that this is not necessary.
If they hold also that the freehold is
not necessarily within the voting dis
trict, as they were compelled by the
! circumstances of the case to hold that
the freeholder Is not necessarily a resi-
dent Of the district. then the words "of
the voting district might as well be
taken out of the law, and the limita
tions sought to be confined to the vot-
ing district are TO be extended to. the
whole area Of the city. AS a matter Of
reason and Justice, we do not see why
this latter might not be the case, since
the city is made a unit for liquor pur
poses, and for all the transactions lead
ing up to the establishment of saloons.
But there is the limitation of the law,
and the question is what the courts are
going to do about it.
And this is but the first hurdle TO be
jumped. Others will follow doubtless
in quick succession. because the law is
succession Of difficulties from first to
last, in which the courts will be in
volved for the coming two years in a
multitude Of suits involving procedure,
construction, and practical application,