The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1914-04-17
AUDRAtN COUNTY
ELECTION VALID.

In an opinion written by Judge c.,
b. ruris, delivered in the Supreme
Court. in banc, April >, the legality
of the recent local option election, in
which Mexico, Audrain County, went
dry, was sustained.
The writ Of mandamus sought by
the "wets" to compel the issuance Of
dramshop license to William Kemp
er was denied The "wets" raised the
question Of the referendum as applied
to the County Unit Act" which, they
declared, was not suspended by the
| filing Of petitions with the Secretary
of State. The "drys," in view of the
contention, were in the peculiar attl-
tude Of urging that one Of their cher
policies Of legislation, something that
they had fought for years to obtain,
was suspended by the invoking Of the
referendum. In other words, the Su-
premc Court upheld the contention Of
the "drys" that the filing Of the re-
ferendum petition on June Is, 1913,
under the provisions of Section GAS,
chap. 50, Revised Statutes Of Missouri
for 1909, were, in all things fully com
piled with in the matter of receiving
and filing referendum petitions, and
were in proper form and legal sutlici-
ency, and, therefore. referred to "A
vote Of the people at the general eiec-
ton, November, 1914, an act of the
Legi .atlrc, approved March 10, 1913,
known as House Bill ~, and entitled
"An Act to Amend Sections 723s,
| 72lo. -2Il, 72l2, 72i3 and 724i Of
Article Ill, chapter SO, of the Revised
Statute Of Missouri for the year
! 1909, entitled Local Option, and to re-
peal Section 1899 of said article, with
an cmogcrucy clause Thus the so
called Unit Bill was suspended by the
filing Of said referendum petition,
pending the next general election.
The Effect in st. Francois County.
The "drys," on receiving copy Of
this opinion, concluded to file petit
ton with the County Court requesting
a local option election throughout st.
Francois County, exclusive only of the
City of Pennington, alleging and con
tending that the census heretofore
taken of the City Of Elvins, August
5, 1918, was illegal, null and void;
and that the City of Pennington is
the only city in the county having n
population Of $500 or more inhabi-
tants.
The "drys" having, therefore, cir
culated their petition and secured
more than 500 names, will file their
petition, it is claimed, with the County
/ Court in special session on Monday,
April 20, and at the same time will
file a petition in the nature of chal-
Icnge of the legality Of the Elyins
census.
Under the law il will be the duty
/ Of the court to first determine whether
the Elvins census was legally taken.
In order to do this it will be very
probable that both sides to the ques-
tion will introduce evidence in their
favor. In addition to the evidence the
attorneys for the two sides will likely
take up considerable time in the argu-
ment of the case, so much so that
much of the early part of the week
will likely be taken up with the hear
ing.
If the court finds the Elvins census
illegal, it will doubtless call an cleo
tion for the county exclusive Of Farm
ington; but, if legal, it will likely re-
ject the "dry" petition, and then the
"drys" may file petition asking for
an election exclusive of Elvins and
Farmngton. Then, in case that the
"drys" so desire, they can file peti.
tions asking for an election in the
City Of Elvins; and after the Supreme
Court passes on the Pennington case,
it will be possible TO take some action
in the City of Pennington, in case
that it is so desired by advocates of
that side of the question.