city and proceedings had as in other cases. The plaintiff or defendant shall have the right of appeal to the proper appellate court of the State as in other cases. Said cause shall be speedily heard and determined, and shall have precedence in time in the Circuit and Appellate Courts over other civil actions. Nothing contained in this section. shall be construed to mean that any power or jurisdiction is conferred upon said courts to fix such rates or regulate the charges of any such public utility.

Regulation of Rates and Charges.

In State ex rel. vs Telephone Co., 189 Mo. 83, the Supreme Court held that Kansas City did not have right to regulate telephone charges under provisions of constitution or enabling act of 1887, but held further that legislature could confer that power upon city. General Assembly conferred the power to regulate rates charged by public utilities in 1907. (Laws 1907, p. 119; Rev Stat. 1909, Secs. 9568, 9569, 9570.)

Rates must be uniform and apply alike to all customers of same class

and are subject to review by courts. (Vanderberg vs Gas Co., 126 Mo. App. 600.)

City cannot surrender rower to regulate charges. (St. Louis vs Gas Light Co., 5 Mo. App. 484, 1. c. 530; State ex rel. vs Corrigan, 85 Mo. 263; Westport vs Mulholland, 159 Mo. 86; City of Carthage vs Garner, 209 Mo. 688; State vs Railroad, 75 Mo. 208; Home Telephone Co. vs City of Los Angeles, 211 U. S. 265. See note to Section 2 this article.)

See Art. III, Sec. 1, Cl. 28.

Sec. 6. Commission to Investigate Establishment of Rates. -The city may, by ordinance, provide for and establish a committee or commission to make investigation into all facts and matters touching the establishment of such just and reasonable rate or rates charged, and the character of the service furnished, and such other matters as the Common Council may designate by ordinance, and after such investigation said commission shall report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. The city shall have power and authority, by ordinance, to require and enforce the production of books and papers and compel the attendance of witnesses before the Common Council or any duly established committee or commission for the purpose of ascertaining the facts under investigation.

Sec. 7. Uniform Gauge For Street Railways.-A uniform gauge shall be established by ordinance for all street railroads in Kansas City.

Sec. 8. Forfeiture of Certain Franchises For Street Railways. All franchises and privileges heretofore granted by the city which are not in actual use and enjoyment, which the grantees thereof have not in good faith commenced to exercise within the time. fixed for so doing by the ordinance granting the right, or by any ordi

nance extending said time, are hereby declared forfeited and of no validity unless said grantees or theri assigns shall, within six months after this charter takes effect, in good faith commence the exercise and enjoyment of such privilege or franchise.

See note to Section 2 this article.

Sec. 9. Control by the City, Construed.-All rights and regulations and control which this Charter gives to the city shall be copstrued as continuing rights and the city shall not be held to have exhausted the right by one exercise thereof, either in the original ordinance by which any franchise may be granted, or by any subsequent ordinance.

See note to Section 2 this article.

Sec. 10. Ordinance Creating or Affecting Franchise Becomes Effective When-Petition to Submit to Qualified Voters -Signed by How Many-Qualifications of Voters-Petition to Be Certified-How Submitted-If Special Election Called for By Person or Corporation, Costs and Expenses. No ordinance creating, granting, extending, amending or altering any franchise, right or privilege to any person or corporation to make use, in whole or in part, of any street or streets. alley or alleys, or other public ground or grounds, whether on, under or above the surface thereof, shall become final and effective until sixty days after the enactment thereof and if within such sixty days after the enactment thereof a petition or petitions requesting that such ordinance shall be submited to a vote of the qualified voters of said city, signed by voters of said city, who were qualified to vote at the last preceding general city election and aggregating in number not less than twenty per cent of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general city election for all candidates for Mayor, shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk, to which petition must be attached a certificate of a notary public of Jackson County, Missouri, stating that the notary has good reason to believe, and does believe, that the signatures thereto are the genuine signatures of qualified voters of said city, which certificate shall constitute prima facie evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of such signatures, the Mayor and Common Council shall cause such ordinance to be submitted to the qualified voters of said city at a general or special election, and unless a majority of the votes cast for and against such ordinance at such election shall be in favor of the adoption thereof, such ordinance shall

be null and void. Such petition shall be canvassed by the City Clerk, City Comptroller and City Counselor, who shall determine whether such petition contains the necessary signatures required as above. Their finding shall be conclusive for all purposes, and they shall make certification of such finding to the Mayor, and a copy. of such certificate shall be recorded in the office of the City Clerk and preserved among e archieves of the city. Such election shall be called, held and conducted as may be prescribed by ordinance, and the certificate of the officer or officers at such time legelly required to make such certificate as to the result of the election shall be final and conclusive. Such franchise ordinance shall not, in any event, be final and effective after the filing of such petition until approved by a majority vote at such election. If a special election be called for a vote on such ordinance, the person or corporation in whose favor such ordinance shall be enacted shall pay all costs and expenses of such election, and shall give bond with security satisfactory to the Mayor for the payment of such costs and expenses before the calling of such election.

Person Signing Name Other Than His Own, Penalty.If any person shall sign the petition above provided for with a name other than his own, or shall procure or attempt to procure any other person to do so, or shall procure or attempt to procure any signature to said petition by false or fraudulent statements he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for not longer than twelve months.

Section 1. Dramshops-Application for License-Indorsement of Police Commissioners-Notice of Application.-Before an application for license to keep a saloon, beer house, tippling house or dramshop shall be received or filed by the City Auditor, there shall be endorsed thereon a certificate signed by the Board of Police Commissioners that such applicant has proved himself to be a person of good moral character. Whenever such application is presented to the Board of Police Commissioners, such Board shall cause notice, in writing, to be served by a policeman, upon every resident property owner in the block where such saloon, beer house, tippling house or dramshop is proposed to be located, designating a day not less than five days nor more than ten days after the service of such notice when remonstrances, if any, against the issuance of such license will be heard. by such Board. Whenever such application so endorsed, as aforesaid, by said Board of Police Commissioners, shall be presented to the City Auditor, he shall issue a license to such appli

cant.

Method of licensing dram shops, see Art. III, Sec. 1, Cl. 31.

State regulations, R. S. 1899, Chap. 22, R. S. 1909, Chap. 63.

No one has a natural right to sell intoxicating liquor because the tendency of its use is to deprave public morals and to do so without a license from proper authority is unlawful. A dram shop license is a mere permit and not a contract with licensee which creates vested rights but is subject at all times to police power and may be revoked. (State vs Seebold, 192 Mo. 720, 1. c. 727, and cases there cited; Barnett vs County Court, 111 Mo. App.

693.)

But when one complies with all requirements of the dram shop law he bases his right to a license upon a valid and constitutional statute and is entitled to a county license and mandamus will lie. (State ex rel. VS Turner, 210 Mo. 77, 1. c. 85.)

But before one can legally conduct dram shop in a city he must have both city and county license. (Sharp vs City of Carthage, 48 Mo. App. 26; State vs Harper, 58 Mo. 530.)

The propriety of the issue of a city dram shop license in any given case is under the charter a matter solely with

in the discretion of the police board. (Ex Parte Joffee, 46 Mo. App. 360, 1. c. 366. cited with approval in Sluder vs Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107, 1. c. 194, and State vs Hamey, 168 Mo. 167, 1. c. 213; State ex rel. vs Stiff, 104 Mo. App. 685.)

It is no defense to a prosecution for failure to take out license that auditor has refused to issue it. If refusal was wrongful the applicant has remedy by mandamus. (City of Kansas vs Flanders, 71 Mo. 281.)

When the state law says that a license shall be granted on the petition of two-thirds of the inhabitants of a block, the Board of Alderman have not the authority to say that there shall be a petition of two-thirds of the entire town. Though the city is authorized to regulate a dram shop, it cannot regulate it in those particulars which would be inconsistent with the regulation made by the state. (State ex rel. vs McCammon, 111 Mo. App. 626, 1. c. 631.)

The statute of the state governing the sale of liquors and the conduct of dram shops thereunder becomes a part and parcel of the license. (Barnett vs County Court, 111 Mo. App. 693.)

The sale of a single glass of liquor without a license is a violation of the ordinance prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license.

Kansas City has authority to enact ordinance prohibiting sales of liquors to women. (City of Joplin vs Jacobs, 119 Mo. App. 134.)

May prohibit females, whether proprietors or employes, waiting on customers in saloons. (State vs Canton, 43 Mo. 48; R. S. 1899, Sec. 2185; R. S. 1909, Sec. 4740.)

Druggist and dramshop keeper dis tinguished. (State vs Willard, 39 Mo. App. 251.)

Keeping saloons open on Sunday. (State vs Binder, 38 Mo., 451; State vs Kessels, 120 Mo. App. 233.)

The sale of liquor to a member by a bona fide social club not incorpor ated for profit is not a sale within the inhibition of dram shop law. (State ex rel. vs The St. Louis Club, 125 Mo. 308.)

But where the principal business of a club is selling intoxicating liquors to its members it is violation of the dram shop act. (State ex inf. vs Kirkwood Social Athletic Club, 121 Mo. App. 87; State ex inf. vs Rosehill Pastime Athletic Club, 121 Mo. App. 81; State ex inf. vs Rod and Gun Club, 121 Mo. App. 364.)

Sec. 2. Revocation of License-Notice to Dramshop Keeper -Hearing. Whenever it shall be shown to the Board of Police Commissioners, upon complaint of any person in writing, or whenever said Board shall become satisfied that any dramshop keeper of the city keeps a disorderly house, or a house that is a resort of minors, lewd or disreputable women, or of evil-disposed persons, the said Board of Police Commissioners may order the license of such dramshop keeper to be revoked, and from the date of such order of revocation, such dramshop keeper shall be deemed to have no license, and to be without authority of law. to carry on a dramshop; and thereafter no license shall be granted to such person to keep a dramshop. Whenever such complaint. in writing shall be made to the Board, or whenever the Board shall become satisfied that any dramshop keeper of the city keeps a disorderly house, or a house that is the resort of minors, lewd or disreputable women, or of evil-disposed persons, such Board