Weekly Chillicothe crisis. (Chillicothe, Livingston Co., Mo.) 1878-19??, 1883-07-12
HIGH LICENSE.
The Downing High License Law Declared
to he Constitutional.



Full Text of the supreme Courts Ruling
IN the Test Case-Tho Law Appli-
cable to st. Louis.
Special to the Kansas City Times.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo, July 8
The supreme court met this afternoon
and announced its decision in the
Downing high license case, declaring
the law constitutional. The following
is the full text OF the opinion:
The state has the right, in tho cXer-
else OF It's police power, to prohibit the
sale of intoxicating liquors without 4
license. (Austin vs.. the state, 10 Mo-,
SOL state VS.. Lcmp, 16 Mo-, 5S2;
state VS.. Soacy, 20 Mo-, 4S9) The
license fee cNactcd by the general law
regulating dram shops, and the act
amcndatory thereof, approved March
:, 1880, is not 4 tax within the mean
ing OF sections one, three, and ten, ar
ticlG ten of the constitution, but is n
price paid for the privilege of doing 4
thing, tho doing of which the state has
Il right to prohibit altogether. Such
laws arc regarded rs ''pOlicC rcgula-
tions established by the legislature for
the prevention of intempcranco and
crime, and for the abatement of nuis-
anccS," and are not regarded rs an
exercise of tho taxing power. "Pur-
suits that are pcrnicious or dctrimon-
tai to public morals may be prohibited
altogether, or licensed for Compcnsa-
tion 10 the public Cooley on con-
slitutional limits, article 727; Burth ct
al vs.. Mayor, Il Ga, j9S Boiler VS..
Schneider, 40 Ga, 1876; Chatoocs VS.,
People, II Mich. i3, etc. II does not
follow because the license fee is large,
or because it may become part of the
public revenue that it is therefore taN.
Estate VS.. llipp, IS Ohio 2jj,)
The manifest penalties and forfeit.
Urcs become apart Of the public rev.
cnuc of this state that are not derived
from taxation; the disposition made Of
the fund derived from license fees does
not necessarily determine the character
Of such fees. The legislature was evil
IDENTIFY of the same opinion, that the
cXactiOn of Il large license fee would
tend TO diminish the number of saloons
and improve the character of those IL
ccrScd and thereby secure to 4 greater
degree compliance with all the regula-
tOns and restrictions which the law has
thrown about such resorts. We are of
opinion therefore that the act of March
%, 1883, is not unconstitutional. We
arc futhcr Of opinion that section 5lil
as amended by the act of March II,
1888, is applicable to tho city of st,
Louis. 1t was said by this court in the
case of the state cX rel. Attorney Gen
cral Van Mckee, 60 Mo-, sos, decided
at the April term, 1879, that general
law with reference to the counties of
the state would not apply TO the city of
st. Louis, but it is provided by section
3l26 Of the revised statutes, which took
effect in November 1879, that whenever
the named county is used in
any law, general in its char
actcr TO the whole state, the same
shall be construed to include the city
of st. Louis, unless such construction
be inconsistent with the intent of such
law or of some law specially apr licablo
to such city. We think it was the OBJ
vious purpose of the act of March II,
1888, to increase the license fec for the
sale of Intoxicating liquors throughout
the state, and it is not, therefore, in
consistent with the evident intent Of
the act 10 declare it applicable to the
city of st. Louis, nor is this COnstruc-
tion inconsistent with any law specially
applicable to the city of St Louis.
The only law ON the subject applicable
to the city of st. Louis is its charter,
which authorizes it to license, tax, and
regulate or suppress saloons, beer
houses, tippling houses and dram shops,
but the charter does not fix the amount
of the license fee to be required, and
the law in question, which limit. the
amount thereof, is, therefore, not in
conflict with the charter, but is con-
sistcnt with and supplementary there
to. 1t follows that the ordinance
passed in pursuance of the charter,
liking tho amount of the license fee at
$50, is repealed by the act of 1888,
which prCSCribcs Il limitation rs to the
amount to be charged in conflict with
such ordinance. We are further of
opinion that, under the act of 1888, it
is the duty of the municipal assembly
Of the city of st. Louis and of the cOun-
ty courts of the several counties in this
state to fix tho amount of license fee to
be charged under said act within the
limits prescribed, and until such action
is taken by said municipal assembly
and said county court, no collector has
the right to issue license TO any person
as dramshop keeper. As ii does not
appear from the agreed statement on
which this cause has been submitted
that the municipal assembly has ever
fixed the amount of license fee to be
charged in the city of st. Louis, tho
collector has noright to issue license,
and the poremptory writ of mandamus
will therefore be refused.
Judges Norton and Sherwood did not
sit, they being absent.
AT ST. LOUIS.
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, July 3.-Thore hay
ing been great diversity OF opinion, not
only among city officials, but lawyers
Us 10 whether what is known as the
Downing high license law, passed by
the legislature last winter, applied TO
ST. Louis rs well rs other sections of
the state. An agreed case was made
up and presented to the supreme
court, that court rendered Il decision