Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-11-26
RINE SEEKS HOLE
FOR THE SALOONS
City Attorney Advises Council
that Licenses May Be Paid
For One Third of Year.
DECISION MEANS BIG SUM

Admitting there is some doubt or
the question, City Attorney Rine ad
vised the city commissioners that he
believes they would be acting within
the intent OF the law if they charged
saloon keepers one-third of $1,000 fol
the one-third of year period from
January l to Apri. 80, 1917.
Mr.. Rine believes that when the
people voted to permit the saloon mer
to operate one-third of the next yeaI
they likewise intended to amend the
81 900 license provision to provide fol
this emergency. ~ .
There is nearly 100000 involved in
the acceptance or rejection of Mr.
Rine's opinion BY the city council. II
the one-third license is charged, all Of
the saloons will remain open until
April 80. Should the $1,000 license be
assessed, some may be closed Decem-
Der 81, it is stated; but the difference
would still be considerable between
| the $1,000 license as provided by the
state law and the -third-year Il
cense as recommended by the city at
torney.
" Gives His Opinion.
The opinion of the city attorney tc
the city commissioners follows:
I'm response to request for an opin'
ion as to the terms and conditions
under which liquor license can be
granted after the first of the year
will state that as under the amend
ment to the constitution prohibiting
the sale of Intoxicating liquors it will
be unlawful to engage in the general
liquor business after May |, 1917, it
is my opinion that your honorable
body has no authority to grant a IL
cense for the sale of Intoxicating
liquors, except druggists permits, for
any period after May l., 1917.
"As to the amount to be charged
for liquor license after the first OF
the year will say that the question
is not free from doubt. | have point
ed out that by the adoption of the
prohibition amendment the liquor
laws of the state have been amended
so that no license can be granted for
any period after May |, 1917.
"The question then arises whether
your honorable body is authorized to
charge $1,000, the sum provided by
law for yearly license. You are
advised that the courts of this state
have held that where application is
made for liquor license and by rea-
son of protest and appeal from the
licensing board to the district court,
the right to exercise the privilege
of sale is suspended for a period, that
the license is permitted to recover
the pro rata part of his license
money, and that where a license is
revoked after the licensee has been
granted license through no fault
of the licensee, such licensee can re-
cover back the pro rata portion of
the license money covering the period
for which he was not authorized af-
ter revocation to exercise his privi-
lege under the license. In this con-
nection | might say that this rule as
laid down by our supreme court diff
fers from the rule established in many
other jurisdictions. 1t is based upon
the ground that equity would not re-
quire the licensee to pay for por-
ton of the license year for which he
was unable to exercise a privilege
where such condition arose through
no fault of his own.
Reasoning by analogy it would