The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1913-07-03
MADISON CONTEST
Full Text of Judge Jones' De.
cision In Election Con-
test Case

Sioux Falls, July 3.-Madison must
remain in the dry column during the
coming year according to the decision
of Judge Jones handed down in cir.
cult court. The court holds that the
liquor element failed to carry the
election for license at the election in
Madison last spring. The license
Question was the only matter before
the voters and 400 votes were cast in
favor of license 400 against, l blank
and 16 thrown out. The vets claimed
that they secured a majority of those
counted and that that was sufficient
under the 1918 law but the court
holds that they must have a majority
of all votes cast on the subject before
licenses can be issued.
Judge Jones in his decision gave
the following statement of facts and
the aw governing the case:
prior to March, 1918, the statute
of this state upon that subject, pro-
vided a mode for submission to the
voters of any city of the proposition
whether intoxicating liquors should
be sold at retail, and prescribed
among other things, the manner in
which a voter should mark his ballot
in order to show his intention and: if
a majority CT the votes of such city
shall vote in favor of such sale of in.
toxicating liquors at retail the corpor
ate authorities thereof shall grant per-
mits for such sale for the ensuing
year The supreme court in a series
of cases construed this statute to
mean that license did not carry at
such an election unless affirmative
ballots exceeded one-half the highest
lumber Of legal voters voting at that
election. 60 that if at such annual
city election 500 voted on the question
of license but SEQ voted on selection
of mayor it would require not 25l, but
26l Affirmative votes correctly marked
to carry license.
AT the recent election at Madison,
no other question but license was vot-
ed upon. The poll list showed $40
voters cast ballots. The recount showed
500 ballots of which 400 were yes, 400
htt Dtdhh II W GU Itkuldt
marked that they could not be counted.
Under the statute above quoted rs con-
stIued by the supreme court there is no
question but that license lost, lacking
i've of a majority of the votes. Nor,
in my opinion is the result affected
by the statutes of 1913 as follows:
And if a majority of the voters of
such city, voting upon such PROPOSE
ton, shall vote in favor of such sale
of intoxicating liquors at retail, etc.
The only change in that feature of
the statute is affected by the words
voting on such proposition The
whole statute and the legislative pol
lev on the subject indicate that the
clause should be understood in its
ordinary, rather than technical sense,
as including all voters who cast bal
lots on such proposition, including
such al failed to express their choice
in the manne precribed by law. AS
| construe it, the amendment makes
no change upon the point in question,
except in cases where city officers are
elected or some other proposition is
voted on at the same election and more
voters cast ballots on s'me other propo-
sition than on the license question.
y. W. Jones,
Circuit Judge "
The clause in the 1918 law voting
on such proposition" which the vets
argued gave them the election, was
voted down by both houses of the
last Legislature as the journals show
but after the bill had been enrolled
and approved by the governor, the
clause was found in the bill. 1t was
thought that Judge Jones would be
called upon to settle the legality of the
clause but that WAS not raised in this
case and the anti. saloon forces win in
spite of the provision.