The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1914-06-05

ht&ttHAtits'- ~ u w ohS ~ Wut&u
the statute may apply. remains
wet. We have no doubt that the
legisuatue may rightfuiiy rstrict the
limits in any town, village or city
where license is permitted so that
the traffic shall not annoy the inhab-
'itants OF adjoining municipalities
who have determined not to have
IT. II certainly may restrict the, sale
TO certain quarter In cities, for
Il may delegate this power to a city
council. In re Wilson 32 MINI. las;
State v. Staffels, supra. We fail to
find any feature of the law obnox-
.ious to the constitution. - 80
section $3.50 @. 3. 1913 provided
that a license shall be annulled by.
operation of law when the sale of
liquor becomes unlawful In the place
for which such license is granted.
Therefore, IL the effect OF the vote
In the village OF Monterey was to
render the sale OF liquors unlawful
In the half mile strip of the adjacent
territory Of Triumph, the REALTORS
conviction Is valid. otherwise not.
The court has arrived at the con-
elusion that the half mile zone
wherein the sale OF liquor is condi-
tIonai upon the vote of the ad-
joining municipality upon the license
question was not intended 10 apply
to any other territory than the or
ganized township, Local option when
first granted was confined to town
ships, except as included In special
charters of villages or cities, Sect.
IA Chap. Is Comp. s. 1855, Chap.
112 G.. L. 1875. Not until ten years
later was II given to villages by
general law, Sect. As, Chap. las G..
L.. 1856. IL has been denied the
voters In cities generally, Kleppe ".
Gard, 1os Mimi. a5l, until Chap. 357
20. L. 1913 bestowed the privilege
upon cities Of the fourth class.
Power Of Commissioners. -.
"The county commissioners during
almost the whole history OF the
state, have had the sole charge of
the issuance OF license In the county
outside OF the Incorporated villages
and cities. where the CIRCULATION OF the
retail liquor taffic has been entrusted
to the village or cit ycouncils subject
to the general liquor laws of the
state. II Is therefore considered that
II was not the intention of the legis-
latnre by the provision In the Sec
tion quoted to affect any other terri
tory than the rural township. Il is
not to be supposed that II was intend
ed that ono village or city by a
majority OF its electors should con-
tract the wet" territory of an ada
cent village or city. or that the
like action of the electors OF a
township adjoining village or. city
! should interfere with the determine
i ton of the village or city to have
licensed saloons wherever deemed
expedient within Its own territory.
Since for so long a time the liquor
traffic within the borders OF a village
or city have been Under the regula-
ton OF It's own council IL Is not rea-
EsOnable to conclude that the legisla-
tnre meant to disturb this in any
manner by conflicting policies OF the
voters OF adjoining governmental sub
divisions, but that the sole aim was
, TO regulate the action of the county
commissioners who has the exchl.
siye charge Of licensing drinking
places IN the townships OF the county.
SO that they may not Issue license
| THEREIN within half mile Of a
town, village, or city which has de.
Itermined to do without the saloon.
This conclusion is strengthened by
the fact that In a township abund-
ant room remains wherein to locate
saloons even III adjacent municipal
/ ties vote no license, while this may
mot be the case with all villages.
Writer Cannot Concur. :
in this view the writer Is unable
TO concur. Ever since 1857 the set.
tiled policy of the state has been to
assume general control OF the re-
stail liquor trade. Municipalities may
resulate, restrain, and suppress, but
may not deal more leniently with
the traffic than the general liquor
regulations permit. State v. Peter
son, 3s Mimi. 143; State ". Robin
son, 10l Mimi 377; Evans v. City
OF Redwood Falls, los, Mimi, 31i;
State ex rel v. Village Council OF
sosakis, 112 MINI. 365. Local option
had been available to villages for
twenty years when Revised Laws OF
1895 were adopted containing this
prohibition against sales within one.
half mile OF dry territory. The
sentiment OF the people, as I see II
take form In Legislation, Is to re-
strict the saloon TO localities where Il
may be the more easily policed and
its baneful Influences restrained. IT
Is easy itos see the annoyance result.
ing TO village or city which has
eliminated the saloon. from its Dor
aers when the county commission
ers, see iflt to authorize public
drinking place just over the line.
But Il 1T 1ess OF an annoyance If
the saloon beyond the boundary Is
In a city or village? Assuming that
the enactment was designed as
Protection TO the Inhabitants OF
town or municipality where the ma