The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1873-10-11

The appellant does not claim he ever ap
Iplied to the authorities, empowered by law Il
grant licenses for q license for himself lac
the application been made and license dc
MED, on the ground that there was no law
that would authorize it, then the question
raised would be presented for decision.
We are, however, Of opinion the validity
Of the present law is not affected by the ques
ton whether the act of 1853, which purport:
to re.enact the laws repealed by the law o.
1851, was legally enacted according to til,
forms of the Constitutions and 1t is not ne
cessary to express an opinion IN regard to 1t
If it is in fact true, at the date OF The passage
of the act Of 1872, there was no law under
which a person residing outside the limits
of incorporated towns and cues could ob
tain license to keep grocery, 1t does no
follow the law, for that reason Is unconstltu
tOnal.
The act we are considering in nearly all
its provisions, is general, and operates equal
" upon all CLASSES of citizens within the linn
its OF The state The first section prohibits
all persons from selling intoxicating liquors
who have not first obtained license as here
in provided. The appellant is within this
general prohibition. The second section pro
hibits the sale of such liquors to minors
without the written consent Of the parents
guardians or family physician, and contains
an absolute restriction upon all persons, with
or without license, from selling to persons
intoxicated, or who are IN the habit of getting
intoxicated
FIT be conceded that the power to grant a
license to keep a grocery is confined to nCor.
poratcd towns and cities, which, by their char
ters, have the right to do 50, is the law, for
that reason, unconstitutional? We think not
COntessedly the sale of intoxicating liquors,
to be drank as Il beverage, Is fruitful source
of crime in our midst and the cause of much
individual suffering. If such are its fruits
when hedged about by penal statutes intended
to control it, maniteSty the unrcstrained traf.
fic would be prolific Of results that could not
be otherwise than detrimental to the best in
tcrcsts of society. 1t may be the best mode
to eiicctuate the beneticent object the legis-
laturc had in view in the passage of the law,
viz, to provide against the evils resulting
from the sale of intoxicating liquors. to con.
fine the power to license the sale to inCOr.
porated towns and cities where it is supposed
the police force is more efficiently organized.
and can better control it. 1t concerns the
public morals, good order, and the welfare of
society; and we are not prepared to hold that
it is an unauthorized exercise Of the police
power OF the state 10 SO provide. A law that
applies to and confers the same general pow
ers on all incorporated towns and cities in the
state is not necessarily u special law, and is
not inhibited by any provision Of the Consti-
tuition against special legislation. (Wilkins
VS.. Polar ct al, IS Ohio, So
Being of opinion the law under which this
prosecution was commenced lie not in conflict
with the constitution of the state, the judg-
mcnt of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.