Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-07-07

nois, 4S9. and cases cited; Henry VS.. State, 90
Arkansas, 52s, Loo. Cit. 525.l 1t does not
follow because the license fee is larger, or
because it may become a part of the public
revenue, that it is therefore . tax. Estate VS..
Hipp. SO Ohio Statutes. 225.] Many fines PEN
alties and fo%rfeitures become a part of the pub
lie revenue of this state that are not derived
from taxation. The disposition made of the
fund derived from license fees does not ne
cessarily determine the character of such fees.
legislature was evidently of the opinion
that the taxation OF alarge license fee would
tend to diminish the number of saloons and
improve the character. of those licensed and
thereby secure to a greater degree compliance
with all the regulations and restrictions
which the law has thrown about such resorts.
We are Of opinion, therefore, that the act of
March "a, 1888, is not .unconstitutional.
APPLIES TO ST. LOUIS.
We are further of the opinion that section
6,441, as amended by the act of March n,
1883, is applicable to the city of st. Louis. It
was said by this court in the case of the state
ex lei. Attorney General vs. Mckee, SO Mo-,
5OS, decided at the April term, 1879, that q
general law with reference to the counties Of
the state would not apply to the city of st.
Louis, but 1t is. ptovided by section 8, 1875 of
the Revised Statutes, which took effect in
November, 1873, that whenever the word
county Is used In any law general in its char
acter to the whole state the same shall be con-
struedto include the city of st. Louis, unless
such construction be inconsistent with the
evident intent OF such law or of some law
specially applicable to such city," We think
H OBVIOUS PURPOSE
Of the act of March "a, 1888, to increase the
license for the sale of intoxicating liquors
throughout the state, and it is not, therefore,
Inconsistent with the evident intent of the
act to declare it applicable to the city of St.
Louis. The only law on that subject ap-
pllcable to the city of ST. Louis, is
its charter, which authorizes it to IL
license, tax, regulate or suppress saloons,
,tippling-houses dram shops, &c,
the charter does NOT fx the amount of the
license fee to be required, and the law in oues-
ton, which limits the amount thereof, is
not id conflict with the charter. but
is consistent with and supplementary thereto.
It follows that the ordinance passed in pur-
suance of the charater, fixing the amount of
he license fee at $50, Is repealed by the act of
1888, which prescribes a limitation as to the
mount to be charged in conflict with said Or
We are further Of the opinion that
1nder the act of 1888, it is the duty of the
municipal assembly of the city OF st. Louis
Of the county courts of the several coun-
les in this state, to fix the amount of license
ee to be charged under said act, within tha1
limits prescribed, and until such action is
aken by said municipal assembiy and said
'ounty courts, no collector has a right to issue
license to any person as 'aIdram-shop keep
r. AS it does not appear from the agreed
on which this cause has been SUBJ
nitted that the municipal ASSEMBLY has ever
ixed the amount of license fee to be charged
n the city of st. Louis, the collector has no
light to issue a license, and the peremptory
writ of mahdamus will therefore be refused.
Judges Norton and Sherwood did notsit, be-
ng absent. So
Court adjourned until court in course, oc-
ober a, next. > 3 81.