The independent. [volume] (Oskaloosa, Kan.) 1860-1874, 1865-06-03
Dram SHOES.

Some citizens appear 10 be ignorant
of the liabilities OF parties who sell liq-
nor with or without incense. For the
benefit ofall parties interested III this
subject. We append a few paragraphs
from the charge Of Judge Gileris, to
the grand jury ef Shawnee county. a
the recent opening of the term of the
District Cour, a, Topeka:
The Judge frs. speaks of the law as
prohibiting the sale of liquor to Indians
under any ircumstaness-then ''that All
places where intoxicating liquors are
sold in violation Of this act shall be Ia
ken, held and declared to be common
ruisances. that the license to sell
liquors is not transferable. cannot be
bsrtered by one individual to another.
that it is strictly a personal trast-tliai
the ''mere fact of having license con-
fers no power of itself to vend liquors
The law requires more than the mere
issuance of paper to make valid
license. You have the power, and
are required to 60 behind the license it.
self. to ascertain if the provisions Of the
Dramshop Act have been complied
with in obtaining the same" The re-
quirements Of the act are stated, and
the jury are directed to examine the
records and see il a majority of all the
householders Of tie township or ward
haze signed the petition, if not. "tben
YOU are bound TO treat the alleged
license AS nullity, rhich Il Is. and
proceed against the licensee as one
having no license whatever" Not on
ly this, but if the Bond is in any wise
detective, the license is TO be treated as
eoid. for it confers no right 10 sell liq-
uor whatever. The charge goes ON To
state that no liquor is 10 be sold on Sun
days.or Election days or Fourth of July.
aud adds. time is essealixl only SO
sar As the particular day Of Tie class
specified is concerned. and need act be |
proved. provided the offense is proven
to have taken place on any day Of that
specified class Of days within TWO years
from the finding Of the Indictment
To illustrate. if you charge a person
with selling Intoxicating liquor on last
Sunday. the pro to sustain the charge,
if it appears that the accused sold liq- |
uor on any other Sunday within two
years from the date of finding the in
dicimenr, is sufficient.
Now here is solid ground. The
charge Of the Judge is pointed and COM
srehensive. No license is valid unless
a majority Of all the householders Of
township have signed the petition. Nor
is this all. He who has sold liquors
within tsco years under a void license,
or contrary to the provisions of the act
is still liable to indictment and punish
ment. though he may not now be enga-
ged in the business. This will often
reach cases tina, need the application Of
discipline after the deed has been COM
milted. and the offender has retired
with his ill-gotteu gains from the bust
ness. We sugges. this portion Of the
case to the serious and careful consider
alton of our readers.
A person selling without a license
has no protection Of Law for his liquors.
They are eontraband of good society.
and liable to be con6scated at any time
when the public see proper to 'abate
the nuisance" We think it will hard
ly be safe for any one to engage in the
sale Of intoxicating liquors in this com
munity. since so large majority Of the
houssbolders have expressed their hos
iility to the unholy traffic in Ids illed
damsation." The past may be forgiv-
en-. but for the future the transgressors
of law must "s:and from UNDER il they
wish 10 save themselves.