The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1911-09-07
ADMITS FIRST CLAIM IN ERROR
Declares Facts Had Not Been Fully
Laid Before Him When He Secured
the First Opinion from the Attorney
Generals Department.


paid for the applications for hunting
licenses in Kenosha county was formal
ly closed this morning when County
Clerk Russell I'll. Jones received let
ter from State Game Warden John A..
Sholts of Madison, which effectually
clears the situation and sustains every
contention made by the county clerk
and shows the hunters that the added
cost for licenses must be laid at the
door of the county board and nowhere
else. The letter from the state game
warden is self explanatory 1t follows:
Madison, Wis, Sept 8, 1911.
Russell H. Jones, County Clerk,
Kenosha County, Kenosha, Wis.
My Dear Sir
I am pleased to acknowledge receipt
of yours of August 30th pertaining to
the amount of the fees charged for
issuing hunting licenses in Kenosha
county
Previous to this date, this same mat
ter has been called to my attention by
a letter written by Deputy Game War
den Michael Kleist of said county of
Kenosha, in which he claims the clerk
of said county was charging $3.50 for
a hunting license and asking that the
same be submitted to the attorney gen
eral by me and his answer sent to said
game warden. The opinion of the at
torney general was given, and the same
sent to Mr.. Kleist as he requested.
Since that opinion was sent to Mr..
Kleist, I have taken the matter up with
you personally. have also examined
a copy of the proceedings of the coun-
ty board of said county of Kenosha,
and find that upon the 9Th day of
January, 1911, by resolution, said
county board Of supervisors instructed
all county officers to make a charge of
their legal fees for each and every
acknowledgement taken before them.
That being the case, any county officer
who takes the acknowledgement in
that county must charge twenty-f five
cents for each acknowledgement taken
before him.
AS an applicant for hunting IL
cense must make an application upon
blank furnished by this office, and the
fact that upon that application blank
there are two ofidavits to be aeknowl-
edged, if the applicant goes before the
county clerk >to have that application
for license acknowledged, he, the
county clerk, is obliged under the reso-
luton above noted, to charge fifty
cents for the acknowledgements upon
that application blank. The license it.
self is an entirely different thing than
The application for the license and a
license shall be issued by the county
clerk for 81 and the clerk is entitled
to retain but ten cents of that dollar.
! feel that this has come about bv a
misunderstanding, or rather misap-
prehension of what constitutes the Ii
cense given to a person who wishes TIC
obtain one, | feel that the game war
den, Mr.. Kleist, has wrongfully held
that the license and the application for
license is but one thing. There can be
no question, however, that an applica-
ton for license and the license
itself are two different things, hence
the impression has been given that be-
cause the county clerk of Kenosha
county has been charging $3.50 for a
license, and if, at the same time he is
sued the license he filed out the appli-
cation blank for that license, I cannot
understand how he could do differently
than to charge $3.50 for making out
both papers.
Before closing, [ wish to say that it
is not necessary for an applicant for
a hunting license to go to the county
clerk TO have the application made out.
Any official who by law in qualified to
administer oaths, may fill out the appli-
cation blank for the license and the
person wishing the license can take
that blank to the clerk and get his
license for ST. That is all there is of
it. | am sir,
Very truly yours,
John A. Sholts.