The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1873-10-10

laws granting 10 any corporation UT
individual any special or exclusive
privilege, immunity, or franchise what
ever
The reason assigned is, the act of
1858, which purports to re-enact the
laws which had been repealed by tie
act of 1851, that authorized county au-
thorities to grant licences to keep q
grocery, was never legally enacted, ac-
cording to the forms prescribed in the
constitution of lS41, and there was
therefore no law in force at the passage
of the act of 1872, authorizing the
granting of licences, other than the
charters of incorporated towns aud
cities and hence, it is said, a person
residing outside of the limits OF such
municipal corporations could not OBJ
tain license, and for that reason the
the law operates unequally on the citi-
zens, and is void
1t is not perceived how the qucs-
ton can arise in this case. There is a
statute that invests the county authori-
ties with discretionary power to grant
licenses to keep a grocery anywhere in
the county, except in towns and cities
that, under their charters have the ex-
elusive privilege, which has been in
cxistance since 1915, exclusive of the
interval between the passage Of the
acts of 1851 and 1854. The appellant
does not claim he ever applied to the
authorities empowered by law to
grant licenses for license for himself.
Had the application been made aud a
license denied, 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 af-
fecteI by the question whether the act
of 1858, which purports to re-eract the
laws repealed by the laws of 1851, was
legally enacted according to the forms
of the constitution, and it is not neccs
sary to express an opinion in regard &c
it. Fit is in fact true, at the date OF
the passage Of the act of 1872, there
was no law under which person re
siding outside the limits of incorpora
ted towns and cities could obtain Ii
cense to keep a grocery, it does not fol
low the law, for that reason, is uncon
stitutional
The act we are considering,in nearl
all its provisions, is general, and oper
ates equally upon all classes of citizen
within the limits of the state. TIL
first section prohibits all persons fror
selling intoxicating liquors, who hav
not first obtained a license as therei
I provided. The appellant is With
this general prohibition. The secnn'
section prohibits the sale of such liqu
, ors to minors, without the written con
. sent of the parents, guardians, or ply
sicans, and contains an absolute re
striction upon all persons, with or with
out license, from selling to person
intoxicated, or who are in the habit G
getting intoxicated.
Fit be conceded the power to gran
license to keep grocery is confne
to incorporated towns and cities, whic
+ by their charters, have the right to d
IS 80, is the law, for that reason, uncol
d stitutional We think not. Confess
eddy the sale of intoxicating liquor
J. to be drank as beverage, is fruitfl
;, source of crime in our midst. and tn
cause of much individual suffering.
c such are its fruits when hedged abou
with penal statutes intended to contrc
= it, maniiestly the unrcstrained traffi
% would be prolific of results that coul
T not be otherwise than detrimental I
the best interests of society. 1t ma
be the best mode to effect the benefi
= cent object the legislature had i
view in the passage of the law, viz: t
provide against the evils resultin!
from the sale of intoxicating liquors
TO confne the power to license the sal
to incorporated towns and cities, wher
it is supposed the police force is NOR
efficiently organized, and can bette
control it, |. concerns the publ
morals, good order and welfare of so
ciety; and We are not prepared to hole
9 that it is an unauthorized exercise O
; the police power Of the state to so pro
f vide. A law that applies to and con
'ers the same general powers on all in
corporated towns and cities in the stat,
is not necessarily special law, and i
not inhibited by any provision of the
constitution against special legislation
wilkins W.. Polar ct. al. Is Ohio
So
Being Of opinion the law unde,
which this prosecution was commenced
is not in conflict with the constitution
Of the state, the judgment of the cir.
cult court must be affirmed. Judg
| -.