The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1873-10-17

4 cases cltct-) mere Is nOllll1 IN ihl
clause of the third section that We arr
aware of that coniraveles any provision
OF our constitution. The same construct
ion has been given TO a like provision il
the Ohio statute in Miller W. The stat,
supra. The point which seems to b,
relied on with the most confidence is
the act is in conflict with that clause o.
the twenty-seconl section Of the fourtl
article OF the constitution OF 1870 whcl
prohibits the passage of local or specia
laws.
"Granting TO any corporation or indi
vi lnal any special or exclusive privilege
immunity. or franchise what ever" The
reason assigned is tile act of 1853 which
purpor,s to re-enact tile laws which have
been repealed by the act of ls5l. That
authorized county authorities To grant
license 10 keep grocery was never le-
gailv enacted according to the forms
prescribed in the constitution of 1913
and there was therefore no law in force
AT the passage OF the act Of 1872 author
izing the granting OF licenses other than
the charters Of incorporated towns and
cities, aud hence il j. said'a person re-
siding outside OF the limits Of such mu.
nicipal corporations could no. obtain
license, and for that reason the law ope-
rates unequally on the citizen and is
void. II il not perceived how this ques-
lion can arise Ia this ease. There j. a
statute that invests the county authori-
tics with discretionary power to grant
licenses 10 keep a grocery anv-w here
in the county excepting in towns
and cities that under their charters lave
the exclusive privilege. which has been
in existence sirce lSi5, exclusive OF the
OF the internal between The passage of
the acts Of 1881 aud 1853 The appel
lsnt does noi claim he ever applied to
the authorities empowered by law t.
grant license for i license himself. Had
the application been made and
: LICENSE DENIED
on the ground there was no law that
would authorize il, then the questions
Wonld be presented for decision. We
are, however. Of opinion the validity of
the present law j. moi affected b: iha
question W neither the act OF 1879 hich
purports To re-enaci tie laws repealed
by the law OF 1851 was legally enacted
according 30 tho forms OF the con>iiil-
ton. aud il j. not necessary 10 express
an opinion IN regard To it. III Il a.. in
fact. true al ihe date oi the passage Of
the Act OF 1872. there was no law under
which q person residing outside the
limits OF Incorporated towns and cities
could obtain a license 10 Keep grocery,
il does not follow the law for that rea-
son X Unconstitutional. The act We are
considering in nearly ali its provisions
J. general and operates equally upon all
classes 81 citizens Within the limits on
the state. The first section prohibits oil.
persons from selling intoxicating liquors
who have not first obtained a license as
therein provided. The appellant is with
ia this general prohibition. The Sec
ond section prohibits the sale OF such
liquors TO minors without the writ
ten consent of the parents, guardians. or
family physician. and contains an absO-
lutte restriction upon all persons, either
with or without license. from selling in
toxicatimg liquors to intoxicated PERSONS
or persons who are IN the hibit Of get
ting intoxicated. II il hc conceded the
power to grant license to keep grocery
is confined TO Incorporated towns and
cities which by their charters have the
right 10 DO 20, j. the law Tor that reason
unconstitutional We think not. Con-
icssedy this sale of Intoxicating liquors
To be drunk a. a beverage j. a fruitful
source OF crime ia our midst. and the
cause OF much individual suffering. lfI
such are it, fruits when hedgcd about
with penal statutes intended to control
il. manlcstlv the nnrrstraiucd traiic
would be prolific Of results that could
not be otherwise than detrimental to
the best Interests OF society. ii may be
the best mode to eilcctuate the beneticcnt
object the legislators have IN view IN
the passage of the law. viz: to provide
against the evils resulting from the sale
of intoxicating liquors. 10 confine The
power To license the sale TO Incorporated
toNns aud cities. where il is supposed
the police force j. more efficiently or
ganized and can better control it.
IL concerns the public morals, good
order and the welfare of society. and
we are not prepared 10 hold that il j. an
unauthorized exercise of the police pow
er OF the state To so provide. A law
that applies TO and coniers the same grn-
cral powers on all incorporated towns
and cities in the State is not necessarily
a special law. and is not inhibited by any
provisions OF the constitution against
special Legislation. IIetkin V. Pollard
cl. ai.. Is Ohio. s5.)
Being OF the opinion the law under
which the prosecution was commenced
j. not la conflict with the constitution
of the State. the Judgment OF the Circuit
Court must be affirmed.
Jud -mcnt approved.
arA An ignorant old lady out near