Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1871-1872, 1872-07-09
OPINION OF TIE CITY ATTORNEY ON
TIE LICENSE QUESTION.

your direction have examined the quesuoh
as to whether the New Liquor Law has the
effect of revokng the grocery licenses
granted by the city on April LIST, 1872, for
one year from that time?"
With the evils of intemperance, against
which the new law is aimed, and with the
policy of the remedy provided against them,
/ have nothing to do nov; neither is it ne
cessary for me at present to consider how
far some OF the provisions Of said law may
be in conflict with our State Constitution.
The new law says, Sec. at shall be un.
lawful for any person or persons by agent or
otherwise, toithOm first haUiag obtained
license, to keep grocery to sell in any guam
tity intoxicating liquors, &c.
ln the same section il says:
"ProUided, That no person shall be grant
Ell license 10 sell or give away intoxicat-
ing liquors, without first giving a bond to
the municipality or authority authorized by
law TO grant license, which bond shall run
in the name of the people Of the State of
Illinois aud be in the penal sum OF SO ,000,"
&c
1t will be noticed in that pert Of the law
above cited, relating to liosRses, thatthere is
no provision declaring unexpired licenses
void or invalid, nor is there any provision
relating to the refuuding Of money received
for such, nor any provision touching the re-
newAl Of, or the filing Of additional bonds TO
make valid the xpired licenses.
] Ii simply says: lst, no person shall sell
! tritAOW q license.
( 2nd. mo pArson shall be granted a
license 10 sell" &c.
/ The questions now arise
Gao we gather from that law al int ntion
TO revoke all unexpired licenses al the time
the law went in force and does not the law
apply only to licenses granted in future
Cases involving the same questions lave
been decided by the courts before.
10 New Hampshire, j. G. B & Co. pro-
cured license on March 81, l949. to SCI,
liquors for one year. On July 6, l849, the
law under which the license was issued was
re peAled. j. Il. b. Il Co. had sold liquors W
to August 10, lS49, to party who thea
gave a note for the amount due them. Sui
was brought on the note; one of the defenseS
was that plaintiffs had no power to sell after
the repeal of the law,
The court said "The license cost
small consideration. viz the recording feel
TO make it perfect after being issued, it wal
very uitiing, still il was a consideration
They had acquired rights under the
I license which had become fixed
the right to sell according t,
the terms Of the license till the April fol
lowing, and so far Is these rights were con
D cerned the law Of July g, 1919, would b.
retrospective, and, of course, imperative
Statutes which take away or impair vested
rights, under existing laws, are RETROSPECT
tive and unconstitutional The court CAV
. Judgment for the amount Of the note snt
! interest.
Ia Hirn vs.. State, /, Ohio reports, mes
:, series, page 10, is u case in which Hirn va
indicted for selling liquor on May 2nd, 1851
= On March y, 1851 the Legislature Of Obi,
- pssseda law restraining the sale of spiritou
, liquor. The law was not to 90 into etfec
till May lst, 1851. The defense was, ths
Hirn had obtained license to sell, unde
the act Of lS3l for one year from Oct. lst
1850; that he paid for it, $500; that th
sale was made at his tavern, and thar b.
was protected BY that license till it ex pired
He was fined in the court below, and tool
the case TO the Supreme Court In dsclj
ing this case the court said:
The question Of the validity of the sc
is not raised, but the inquiry is presents,
? whether the effect and operation Of the &C
WAS to revoke or snnul the authority to re
tail spirituous liquors, granted to taver
keepers by licenses which had not expire,
!. when the act took effect. license to kee
tavern under the authority of the &C
granting licenses aud regulating tavern
passed June LIST, 1881, was license accord
0 ing the true intent aud meaning of said act
( to retail liquors as well as to keep g tavern
The act to restrain the sale of spirtuou
liquors OF March 1851, did BY its operation
repeal the act of June 1891, 80 far as
conferred the authority to grant licenses i
future 20 retail liquor. but did not BY an
express language revoke or annul the out
! standing licenses. which Rad been granite
under the act Of 1871 and had not expire
at the time the former act took effect
The repeating clause says, all laws @
parts Of laws, licensing the sale OF spiritu
. Gus liquors which are inconsistent with th
provisions Of this act be and the same ar
repesled.' This repeating clause affect
nothing but the power TO grant licenses i
future after The law took effect 1t rcpeale
the law Of 1881 10 grant any more license
10 FETAL spirituous liquors, but nothing fun
, lher; there is no language employed expires;
i've OF any intention 20 revoke or annpl tn
: uneIpired licenses previously granted. Tn
license was privilege, an acquired RICH
which, during it's term, was not dspendsu
on ths continuance Of the law under whic
. it had been granted. If a license had bee
4 granted snd taken out TO keep = tavern VI
j. Ger the act Of 1881, on one dsy, and tn
q next day the entire law had been repealed
i il could not be claimed that the license t
. keep tavern had been revoked. The re
peal Of the law would simply take awRv tn
: authority to grant future licenses. 1t
clear that the unexpired licenses were no
expressly repealed or revoked by the act a
1851. 1t is but fair to presume that, if tn
General Assembly had intended any sue
thing, such intention would have been ex
pressed, and provision made for rsfuDdinj
the money obtained fo5 the licenses re
voksd.
CONNECTED as the subject is with tn
public police and domestic regulation of th
State the legislature had the power, on tn
ground of protecting the health morals ant
good order of the community, or evoke o
provide the mode of revoking the uDexpirel
licenses, granted under the act of 1881, bu
the exercise Of this power, without rsfundinl
buhhluou iOE ICbDbb, NOul
be an act of bad faith, and, as repeats b
I implication are not favored, and pena
statutes are strictly construed, such 81
operation will not be given to the law b
mere implication, in the absence Of word
directly and clearly expressive of such in
tention. The act of March u, 1851 did no
by its terms take effect till May LAT of tha
year, mp 10 which period licenses could b
granted under the law of 1881, It no
reasonable to presume that the Legislature
would, after authorizing a license and allow
ing the granting Of it till particular period
and after obtaining thereby the payment o
many thousands Of dollars into the treasury
revoke the license before the expiration Q
the term for which it was granted, withou
REIN bursement, at least the court will no
presume Rny snch act of bad faith from mer
implication; if any such power be exercise
1t must be clearly and distinctly expresse
} in the law" The Supreme Court'reverse,