The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1914-05-08
BONDS REJECTED
MADISON A DRY TOWN ACCORD.
ING TO THE ACTION OF THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

In session late yesterday after
noon, the county commissioners re-
jected the bonds of Fred Kurth, Pc
ter Heagney, j. A. Donnelly and Ben
DeBelts who had been granted licen-
ses by the city commission to con
duet saloons in the city Of Madison.
The proposition coming before the
board on a motion to approve the
bonds, ID. NJ. Finnie voted yes, Geo.
Simmons no., VIM. Curtis no. and the
motion was lost.
The board had previously asked
for a written opinion from States
Attorney Holdridge on the question
of their right to reject the bonds,
and the following was submitted to
them. 1t viii be observed that States
Attorney Holdridge simply quotes
the law and supreme court decisions
in such cases without other com
ment. Following is States Attorney
Holdridge's written reply to the
boards inquiry:
Madison, S. D., May Z, 1914.-
Honorable Board of County Commits
sioners, Lake county, S. D.:
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES to your in
quiry as to the right of the board
to refuse to approve the bonds of
applicants to sell intoxicating liq-
uors, now before you, l will state:
Sec. 1899 of the revised Political
Code is the law governing the mat
ter. A part OF this section applicable
to this question reads as follows:
IF in the Judgment of the board
of county commissioners of the oun
ty i'm which said business is propo
ed to be carried on, the principal of
said bond is known by said board
to be a person whose character and
habits would render him or her a
person unfit to conduct the business
of selling liquor, they, the said
board, shall refuse TO endorse said
bona with their approval"
The supreme court of this state in
passing upon this question, in the
| case of Burke VS.. Collins ct al, IS
South Dakota, page 100, use the fol-
lowing language:
THE clause of the code confer
ring the power to reject the bond is
| contained in section 1889 Of the re-
vised political code of 1903 and
reads as follows Getting the law as
above stated. 1t will be observed
that the board of county commits
| sioners are not required to state the
reason for their rejection of the
bond in the record of their proceed
ings, nor are they required TO state
in what manner it is made known to
them that the principal of the bond
is an unfit person to engage in the
1 ha,rtnarg Tt mill ho nhcapKnH that
under the provisions of the code, the
commissioners are authorized to re-
ject the bond, acting upon their own
knowledge, of the unitness of the
principal, without the presentation
of any evidence, or suggestion from
any outside party. In other words
the approval or rejection of the bond
is left entirely to the sound discre-
ton of the board acting upon their
own knowledge of the fitness or un-
fitness of the principal, and under
their oath of office. In the view we
take of the case, the decision OF the
board was final and not subject to
review in any proceedings"
1t would seem, therefore, from the
above decision of our supreme court,
which has not been reversed, that if
the board of county commissioners
under their oath of office" shall de-
termine in their own minds, that a
person is an unfit person to conduct
the business of selling intoxicating
liquors, they have a legal right to
refuse to approve his bond. Respect
fully submitted,
H. II. Holdridge,
States Attorney.
The action of the board created
something of a sensation in the city
and there has been much discussion
of the subject today, sentiment oil
right or wrong being more or less
dependent upon the views of those
who discuss the matter-whetheI
they be of the wet or dry persuasion
While the commissioners have moi
given their reasons for rejecting the
bonds, a privilege accorded them by
the law, the indications are hat they
stood on their lawful right to con
slider the applicants unfit persons tC
conduct saloons. The surety bonds