The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1912-12-06
THE AMERICAN ISSUE

no affirmative authority to issue licenses for the sale of
Intoxicating liquors and does purport to authorize
such sales. No vote that be taken under the act
will of itself, authorize the traffic the issuance of
licenses, but municipal legislation is necessary for
liking the license fee providing for licenses and regu-
latng the traffic. The township, therefore, could not
by any vote authorize the issuance of licenses in the
city OF Shelbyville. If city, incorporated town
village becomes antisaoon territory and afterward the
legal voters decide that shall continue to be such
antisaloon territory all ordinances either restricting
regulating or prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating liquor
as well for the issuing of drashop licenses again
become operative. If there were ordinances in force
prohibiting the traffic when the political subdivision
became saloon territory they revived by
that the subdivision shall be antisaloon terri
tory and the only effect of such vote would be that
the municipal authorities could repeal the prohbitive
ordinance and pass ordinance authorizing licenses
By the township election in 1908 the whole township
including the territory within the limits of the city of
Shelbyve, became anti-saloon territory but the city
was political subdivision having a right, under the
express terms OF the statute, to decide whether it
should become antlsaloon territory and the voters
had legal right to vote that question April FL
1908 regardless of the result of the township election
1t the election in the city had resulted against the
proposition there would still have been the prohibition
created by the township election but the fact that the
township had become antisaloon territory did pre-
clude the city from also voting to become anti-saloon
territory, to remain such until both the township and
city voted to abolish the restriction The of the
township in 1910 that the prohibition should not
city of Shelbyvile saloon territory but it remained
anti-saoon territory, and will remain such until the
legal voters of the city decide the contrary and
move the restriction. To give the statute which was
enacted solely for the purpose of creating antisaloon
territory, construction that the legal voters of the
township could make the city saloon territory against
the will of the legal voters of the city would not be
justified A similar statute has been construed by
the supreme of Colorado in accordance with this
view in an opinion which appears to us to be I'M
answerabe. (Schwartz V. People, Io4 Pac. Rep o2.)
1t is true that court conceded that the rule does
not work both ways but it made plain that the
court had nothing to do with that question and it's
only duty to enforce the statute made 1t was
in the discretion of the general assembly, in the exer-
else OF the police power, for the protection of the
health morals and safety of the people and the pro-
motion of their general welfare the statute
and our only function is to apply the law as made
The Local Option Act Provides Both An Equitable
and Criminal Remedy.
Section SO of the in question provides that all
places where intoxicating liquor is sold in violation
OF any provision Of the act shall be taken and held
and are declared to be common nuisances and may be
IA