, 1873-10-04
THE LIQUOR LAW.
It Is Held 10 Dc Constitutional by tho
Supreme Court.
A Man Cannot Sell Liquor Without
Taking Out d License.
Opinion Of Justice Scott, Delivered on the
1st Instant.

1st Instant.
Tho following is tho opinion Of Tho Supreme
Court, announced by Mr.. Justice Scott on tho
lst inst, which, by tho kindness OF Mr. Trimblo,
Clerk Of the Supreme Court, our reporter has
boon onablcd to copy:
Ihis was prosecution commenced boforo n
Justico Of tho peacc ngainst tho appellant, for
selling Intoxicating liquors without liccnae.
Tho Justice found him guilty, nud assoanod a
lille Of s'20 againHt linn, and rendered judgment
| accordingly. On an appeal, tahon to tho Circuit
Court, tho cal,so WIS submitted on Ill agrood
Hsato of facts, aud tic Court. prororna, found
tho appellant guilty, a1l cntorod n judgment
| agai1'st lin Of $40, aud costs Of suit.
from tic statement Of faots it appears tho ap-
poliant rcsldcs near tito City Of Ottawa, in La-
Smile County, hut not within tho limisB Of any
Incorporated town or city that ho las noyer
! given Tho requisite bond md obtained liceuao
to keep grocery aB required by tho first section
Of MI act entitled AN net to provide ngatnsr
tho evils resulting from tho enlo of Intoxicating
liquors III tho stato Of Illinois," approved Jau.
10, 1879, mud ut his residence as stntod, ho laa
t repeatedly sold Intoxicating liquors in less
quantity tlnn ono quart to any person who ,lo-
b1rcd to purchase, to bo drnnls OH l;s promises
by tho glaBs aud tho liquors 10 sold wore drank
BY tho persons purchasing, on Lis promises, by
II Is provided, in the first section Of tho act
under whtc II this prosecution was commenced, it
Bha'l be unlawful for a1ly person not having OBJ
tanned q hconae to Keep grocery, to soil. In any
quantity, Intoxicating liquors to 10 drank on tho
premises where sold, or in any adjoining room,
or anv place Of public resort connected the1o-
with, aud no porson HhAl bo grauted liceuso
without first giving n bond to tho municipality
Or authority authorized by Inv to grant 1lconses,
In tho penal sum Of $4,000, with two sufficient
securities, which bond shall be conditioned and
for the purposes III thoroin directed,
Tho second section provides 1t shall bo unlaw-
ful Tor Gny person to Hel Intoxicating liquors to
minors unless upon tho wilton authority OF
their parents, or eunrdiane. or family physician,
or to persons Intoxicated, or who are in the
hahit Of gotting intoxicated.
ln tho third section it Ia provided. all p1noeB
wherein Intoxicating liquors are sold, in viola
ton Of thisact shnll be taken, held, and declared
to DO common nnisances, and all such places
shnll bo Hlut md abated, Oh tho conviction Of
tho keeper thereof.
Tho sixth section doclares whnt penalties shall
be Inflicted on the porsons violating tho pro-
visions Of the first aud second sections of this
net.
The admitted facts show clear violation OF
the fret section Of tho statute, but not Of tho
second
It is insisted O conviction cannot be MUM
tainoa nnless the evidence shows violation of
tho first and second SECTIONS. The objection
aooms hypercriticnlA It is founded on tho peculiar
tho penalties, aud which proyidoa that every
person guilty Of violating tho provisions Of tho
" first md second sections" shall forfeit and
pny certain penalties.
the violation Of either section, md it il not in
disponsable party should be guilty of viola
tlon Of both before he can be subjected to tho
forfcitures enumerated. This IL tho obvious
tion given to tho same language III tile statute
Of Ohio on tho eafno subject. III Miller v. The
specss, is n substantial and in other parts n
literal, transcript Of tho Ohio law, - aud
It is q rulo that, when tho Logis-
lature adopts substantially the statute of nnut1-
or State, It is presumed to adopt also tho
construction previously given it by the Courts of
Tint State, unlosa such construction il incon-
sistent with the. spirit and pulley Of our
lnws: 1figgs ct a. Y. Wilton et H., IL ILL.,, Rep
10; Campbellv Qnnlin, S:al,., 285.)
II ID Urged, the clnuso Of tho third section,
which dcclnres ull placcs whore Intoxicating
liquors aro sold in violation OF this act to be
abatcd, authorizes the destruction Of private
property, aud, therefore, contruvenes constitu-
tional law.
vo3Yn Ts construction h 4a Of ta section j. not in
Counsel. however. is in error in supposing
it authorizes tho summary destruction
Of private property. It authorizes no such
thing. II simply declares all places whore
intoxicating liquors nro sold in violation OF this
act common nuiAauccs. and provides they may
DO ahut up and this illegal traffic carried on
there abated. Tho object ia to prevent tho as-
aembllnE Of idle and evil-disposcd persous for
the purpose Of violating the lawa OF this State.
Under what il called tho police power, the Leg
iBlaturo has tho right to authorize ths abaten,ont
Of public nuisance, and tue carrying on of IN
llicsA! traffic IN Intoxicating liquors. aud Tho as-
scmbling OF idlo and vicious persons for that
purpose, IL nuisance, aud may be 30 declared
and abatcd according to Inv. (Block Y. THO
Town Of Jacksonville, sc Ill. Rep, 301, and cases
citel)
There is nothing in this clause OF tho third 8cc-
tion that We are aware OF that eontrayoncs any
provisions Of our Constitution. The Sumo con-
struction has boon given to @ like provision ia
the Ohio statute, in Miller vs The state-supr0.
The point which aecmB to DO relied un with tho
nost confidence il. tho act ia In conflict with that
clause Of tho twonty.second section OF the fourth
article Of the Constitution OF 1870 which pro-
hibits tho pnssaso Of looal or special laws
"granting to any corporation or individual any
special or exclusive privilege immunity, or fran
chiso whatover."
Tho reason assigned ia, the act Of 1859 which
purports to ro-onact tho laws which had beon