The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1916-09-28
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IN COURT
ANSWER MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS

The mayor and members of the
city council were summoned to ap.
pear before Judge Trip at Yankton
on Tuesday of this week, on com
plant sworn out by Martin Cram
who seeks by mandamus proceed.
iDgs to procure a license to run a
saloon in Scotland. When the
matter of granting Licenses was
considered last June, the council
decided to grant only one license,
believing that the liquor business
could be better controlled with one
saloon than with two. Shortly af.
ter this license was granted Mr..
Cram, who had been bartender
in the zolnowsky saloon, inter-
viewed the mayor and councilmen
in regard to bis chances of getting
a license. He was told by She
mayor and at least three members
that they would not favor second
saloon. In spite of this assurance
a petition was circulated and pre-
sented to the council. At the Aug
ust meeting, with full board pres
ent, the application was read and
considered. A motion was made
that the application be accepted,
a date for hearing be iset and no.
tice of same be published. The
motion was put and was defeated,
thus rejecting the application. Mr..
Cram now complains that the
council has failed to set any date
for hearing his petition and has
thus deprived him of the right to
have his application considered,
and asks the court to compel them
to do so. The court issued an al.
Tentative writ of mandamus, or
dering the council to proceed forth
with to set date for hesring on
the application and publish notice
of said meeting, or appear before
the court at Yank ton and show
cause why they have not done so.
The council met las. Saturday ev.
ening and decided to appear at
Yankton.
The supreme court of this state
has uniformly held that a city
council has the right to reject any
application for saloon license,
and is not required to state its rea-
sons for so doing. The law which
requires special hearing as above
mentioned provides that "Before"
a permit shall be granted the coun-
Gil shall set date for hearing and
notice of same shall be published
two weeks, when and where any
person may appear and show cause
why such licence should NOT be
received and permit granted
The defense contends that the pur.
pose of this feature of the law is to
prohibit the council from granting
any permit to sell intoxicating liq.
uors without first giving the public
an opportunity to appear and en-
ter protest. That it does not give
the applicant any right to appear
and show cause why permit should
be granted, but is simply a meet
ing for protests. While the law
says this hearing must be held be-
fore a permit shall be granted 1t
does not say that it must be held
before an application shall be re-
jected. The right to reject res ts
with the council, regardless of pro.
tests. If therefore, the council de-
cides, as it did in the present case,
to reject the application on it's own
motion, as would seem to be their
right under the rulings of the gu.
preme court, why should meet.
ing to hear protests be held? The
only point at issue seems to be
whether the city council should
have rejected the application when
it was first presented, or should
have set date for hearing pro.
tests and then rejected it. The
result for the applicant would have
been the same, and what purpose
fhoro mo q IN hrin r;,o ~ &bo n ok;o,o .,