Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1883-07-19
HIGH LICENSE.


The following is the full text Of the opin'
ion of the Supreme Court declaring tue
Downing high-license law constitutional:
The State has the right in the exercise of it,
police power TO prohibit the sale Of intoXicai-
ing liquors without a license [Austin vs.. State,
vs. Searcey. ~ Mo, 1891 The license fee ex-
acted by the general law regulating dram
shops and the act amendatory Thereon, mp
proved March "a, 1855 is not Il tax within the
meaning of sections l, ana 10 of article III or
the Constitution, but is price paid for the
privilege of doing IL thing, the doing of which
gether. Such laws are regarded as poiIce
regulations established by the Legislature Tor
the prevention of intempcrailce, pauper1sln
and crime, and for the abatement or nun
sauces." and are not regarded as an exercise
of the taxing power. Pursuits that are per-
niciouS or detrimental to public morals may
be prohibited altogether or licensed fora com
pensation to the public. [Cooiey on Constitu-
tiona Limitation, fourth section, III Buren, ct
al. VS.. Meyer, &c, f.: Georgia. 1898; Boiler vs..
Schneider, - Georgia. l95, Chelvers VS.. The
People, IL Michigan, IS: People vs.. Thui bci.
Schools, lU2 Illinois. 4s9, and cases C ted;
Henry VS. State, 70 Arkansas. 523, Loc. Cit: 10
larger, or because it may become part OF the
public revenue. that it Is therefore tax
Estate VS. Ripp, IS Ohio Statutes, 225.] Many
fines, penalties and forfeitures become part
of the public revenue of this State that are
not derived from. taxation. The disposition
made of the fund derived from license fees
ter Of such fees. The legislature was evil
IDENTITY OF the opinion that the taxation OF d
large 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 ali the regu-
lations and restrictions which the law has
thrown about such resorts. We of opn-
ion. therefore, that the act of March "a, 1883,
is not unconstitutional.
We are further of the opinion that section
SAL, as amended by the act of March "A, 1858,
is applicable to the city of ST. Louis. 1t was
rel. Attorney-General vs. Mckee, 20 Mo, sos
decided &C the April term, 1879, that a general
would not apply to the city of st: Louis. but it
is provided by section 3,126 of the Revised
Statutes, which took effect in November, 1879,
that - whenever the word county is used in
any law general in its character to the whole
State the same Shall be constructed to include
be inconsistent with the evident intent of such
law or of some law specially applicable to such
city" We think it was the obvious purpose
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 that subject applicable to
the city of ST. Louis. is it's charter, which au-
thorizes it to license, tax, regulate or suppress
shops, etc, but the charter does not fix the
amount of the license fee to be required, and
the law in question, which limits the amount
thereof, is therefore not in conflict with the
charter, butt consistent with and supplement-
airy thereto. 1t follows that the ordinance
passed in pursuance of the charter, fixing
the amount of the license fee at sixty dollars
is repealed by the act of 1883, which prescribes
a limitation as to tb ? amount to be charged in
conflict with said ordnance We are further
of the opinion that under the act of 1883
it is the duty of the municipal assembly of the
city of St Louis and of the county courts of
the several counties in this State. to fix the
amount of license fee to be charged under
said act, within the limits prescribed, and I'M
til such action is taken by said municipal
sembly and said county courts no collector
has right to issue a license to any person
as dram-shop keeper. AS it does
not appear from the agreed statement on
which this clause has been submitted that the
municipal assembly has ever fixed the amount
of license fee to be charged in the city of st.
Louis the Collector has no right to issue a
license. and the peremptory writ of manda-
mus will therefore be refused. Judges Norton
and Sherwood did not sit, being absent.