The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1914-06-05
this morning by Sheriff Anton
f'Ostsn. eds Z f,iH 49,


- ~~~~<% =
-~-~----.
From Fridays osi0. a4sa4.5 !,
Liquor dealers In Mankato can rest
easy. They can continue 10 do bust
ness on Front street, The state SUI
Ipreme court has decided that the
law prohibiting the sale of in
toxicating drinks with I'm, q half
.1nile limit of q dry zone does
not affect cities or, villages in Mime
sofa Judge ouinns decision In the
cases of w. S.'Carver vs.. Joseph Mil
er and Christ r. Sim, the Triumph sa-
loon men, who we're arrested for selling
liquor, within, half q mile. of Monte.
rey, a dry territory, and who applied
for their release from the sheriff
a. habeas corpus. but ! was de
MED the writ, has been reversed.
The supreme court. contends:
"The provision of section 3142 G.
E3. 1919 forbidding the : sale of in
toxicating nqner within one-half mile
OF town or municipality which has
voted no license Is constitutional. but
the half mile zone which may thus
by vote ofishe adiseent tnvn or
municipality become closed against
the saloon cannot embrace any terri
tory within a village or city.
Order reversed" .r
Facts In the Case.
Appeal by relatOr In ,habeas
corpus proceeding from the order
of the district court remanding him
to he custody of the sheriff, the
respondent in the writ. -r 10.
THE facts are these: Triumph
and Monterey were contiguous VII
lagos in Martin county,. this state
In Triumph license to sell intoxicat-
ing liquors may lawfully be granted.
and relator duly obtained. and had a
license to retail such liquors at a
place within one-half a mile OF the
limits of Monterey. While so en-
gagged In business an election was
duly held In the village of Monterey
at which a majority Of the votes
cast were against license, Thereupon
relator was arrested, and convicted
OF selling liquor in prohibited ter
rltory, and the commitment issued
under which he. is held by the re-
spondent. The legality OF the eonvic-
ton is assailed by this proceeding.
The relator contends that the
following provision. Of section 3142
G. s. 1915 under which he was con.
yicted Is unconstitutional. The sale
of liquor in any quantity whatever
! is also forbidden in the following
places ..t ....
First. In any town or municipal
ity in which a majority OF votes at
the last election at which the .ques-
tion of license, was voted, upon shall
not have been, In favor of license,
or within one-hah mile OF any such
municipality, IA e4cept that ANY intoxi-
eating liquor, manufactured within
any such district, may be sold to be
consumed outside OF rspch district,
II Is claimed that K full effect is
given to the clause or within one.
half mile of any such municipality
the voters of one village are en-
sabled to regulate Affairs within the
territory of "a naighboring village,
and that such power may not be
delegated to any mnnieipality. or
course. IL Isl conceded that. the leg
islature may delegate ito Imunicipali-
ties power OF locol seIfgovernment
and has so ldone. 10 a large extent
Laws Operate Within Own Territory.
The laws and ordinances enacted
by municipality I'm virtue of such
delegated authority operate only
within its own territory. II must
therefore be admitted that the ilegis.
lature may not authorize one munich.
pality TO determine for another mat.
tiers which properly belong to the
local affairs OF the latter. Harrfng-
ton v. Town OF Piainview, 81 MINI.
232; State ". Young, 20 Mimi. 474;
State ". Simmons. 80 Mimi, $40.
However, the Legislature has not
delegated to any town cor village an
unrestricted power ossrf the retail
Il t.ftot ttuiIfUf az acttst ever 7slHC6
1887, the policy has beengto regulate
and restrain by general laws all mu.
inequalities I'm THAT respect, leaving
however. no the electors or councils
OF such municipalities to prohibit
or impose further restrictions. The
law is thoroughly settled that the
retail liquor trade Is business
which may be regulated, restrained
and even prohibited without inffins.
ing either state or federal constitu-
ations. IL Is not an open question In
this state that the legislature may
constitutionally provide for the es-
tablishment of prohlbItIye districts
by local option or by direct legis-
lation, although the license of the
sale of Intoxicating liquors Is the
general rule OF the state. and pro-
hibition I'm certain Districts the sex-
ception.' State ". Stnffels, 50 MINI,
206; Foster. v. Kansas. ia u. s..
2ei; Muller v. Kansas, 123 u. S. eo3.
The state In virtue OF It's police
power has unquestioned and fun do
minion over the retail liquor bust
meas. Under that authority the pfivl-
lege Of local option was extended to
townships flrss. then TO villages, TO
certain cities by special character