The Grenada sentinel. [volume] (Grenada, Miss.) 1868-1955, 1882-06-03
payment Of only such fees as will meet

the expense OF enforcing the reguiatiun''
In my opinion, taking the constitution
and all the laws upon the subject OF sell>
ing whiskey by the pint together, the
license tax is imposed for revenue, and
the legislation not an exercise Of the po>
lice power of the State.
The pint law, as it is commonly called.
is in the chapter of The code entitled
"Public Revenue" and is embraced in
the law which taxes other highly moral
pursuits, G. g. practicing law; and in the
same chapter is to be found all the mas
chinery Of the law tor the levying and
collection of taxes Can the Idea then
be reasonably entertained that the legis-
lature intended to exercise the police
power of the State in passing this law?
If not, is it reasonable or logical cons
clusion that Its mere repeal was an exer-
else of such power, especially when the
repeating law does not in terms revoke
existing licenses, or even intimate such
purpose2 Is it not more reasonable 70
construe this repeating law to mean that
the power to issue license in the future,
after the law went into effect. to be ta-
ken away That it simply mean that from
and after the passage of this act the sher-
| iff should not issue any pint licenses T!
Is there any intimation that anything
more was designed? am more inclined
to this opinion after considering all onr
whiskey laws together, which authorize
the sale of whiskey in greater and less
quantities than one pint, and which were
left untouched by the legislature. The
case ofMoore VS.. the State is not author
ity upon this case for the reason that
there was no question involved as to leg
isative intention as the constitution sec.
Us art - says: "The legislature shall
never authorize any lottery, nor shall
any lottery heretofore authorized be per-
| mitted to be drawn on tickets Sold
1t is reasonable to presume that if the
legislature had had designed to annul
existing pint licenses, some such prohib>
ition would have been incorporated in
the repeating act As you sensibly sug-
gested in your letter to me, "it is not
every repeal of whiskey law that is to
be construed as the exercise of police
power"
In Howe VS.. State, LIST Ohio sec. II; l
find this reasoning upon the construct.
ion of statute similar to the one in
question which / adopt as my view OF
the subject: ut is not reasonable to
presume that the Legislature would after
authorizing license and the granting OF
it for fixed period and receiving the
money, would revoke the same without
reimbursement, At least court will
not presume any such act OF bad faith
from mere Implication. If any such was
intended to be exercised it should have
been clearly expressed in the law. If it is
contended that the policy of the law was
to put an end to selling whiskcy BY the
pint, then the pint license being tempo>
rary and of but short duration, only gave
the statute more gradual effect in going
into operation.
This is u penal statute, and must re-
ceive strict construction, but not to be
( extended beyond the manifest Intention
OF the legislature. The subject matter
the reason, and the effect Of the law
must be looked to. Statutes in deroga-
tion of the rights of parties (and this re-
pealing law is such even though not
strictly ceatract) are to be 80 constru-
ed that no one who is Innocent be pun-
ished, or damaged, and should not be so
construed as to render it unreasonable, !"
By giving the statute this construc-
tion we follow that rule which declares
it "eminently wise and expedient To up
hold the inviolability OF contracts" AT
the same time we do no violence to that
construction which declares such licenses
mere privileees--not contracts subject
to be changed aticgislative will.
/ concede that this construction may
be wrong, that the subject is beset with
difficulties, and that in its discussions
have arrived at region "where certain
ty ends and doubt begins" still | am H.
ctired to the opinion that the legisia-
ture meant nothing more in the repeal
ofihe pint liquor law than to say, that
the privilege to selI by the pint, should
not. IN the luturc, be granted. lam
greatly Indebted to you for your valua'
bile suggestions on the subject.
/ Your friend, .. +.
,..a IRA d. OGIEsBY.