The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1885-03-26

The saloon Common Nu1sancs-LiquOrs
Dehned-Their Manufacture
Attorney General Bradford, IN re-
Spouse 10 numerous requests for his
opinion on various clauses in the new
liquor law, makes public the following
reply:
Chas. Curtis, Attorney. shawnee County,
Topeka. Kansas;
DEAR SIR: In answering the various
questions you asked concerning the new
liquor law, passed by the
recent legislature, will review the gen.
eral status of the law on this subject, !.
e., the act OF 1881 as amended and sup
plemented by the act of 1885, which took
effect March 10, 1885.
The act Of 1881 Is still In force except
as amended. The only sections amend
ed are 2, 3, 4, z, 8, o. II, ID and 81. The
and decision Of the higher
courts upon SO much of the original act
as remains unchanged, are therefore
auIhorIty for the Interpretation OF the
law as il now exists. With reference TO
the amended section, in so far as the
provisions thereof are the same as the
provisions of the original sections. they
of the old law, and not as a new enact
ment. Sec. !, Chap. 104, compiled lave
of 1879. In This connection you inquire:
"Can persons be now prosecuted for acts
committed prior to the enactment of the
law of 1852
And "Are druggists permits issued
under the act of 1881, and unexpired by
Limitation, still COED IN law ?'
Each of these questions are answered
In the affirmative upon the authority of
the several provisions of subdivision
first, of section 1, chapter 104, compiled
laws of 1879. The repeal of statute
does affect any penalty incurred an
der or by virtue of the statute repeal
ed. This is an answer to the first ques-
ton. The provisions of any statute, so
far as they are the same as those of u
prior statute, shall be construed
as q continuation of such provisions and
not as a new enactment. The provisions
for obtaining a permit are the same now
as they were by the prior law except
that freehold instead OF citizens petition
ers are now required. Such provisions
as are the same, are q continuation OF
the for mer act, and not as q new enact
ment. This is an answer to the second
question. It is not necessary TO sur
render and renew permits granted under
the law Of 1881, prior to their expiration.
DRUGGISTS BONDS.
But you ask. What IL the status OF
the bond given under the act of 1881,
where q druggist continues to sell under
his old permit?"
The mandatory act repeats absolutely
the bond provisions and new bond Is
now required. The bond given is there.
fore not held for violations committed
subsequent to the taking effect of the
act OF 1885. The repeal of q statue how.
ever does not effect any rights which &C.
| crued, or Liabilities incurred under thu
statutes repealed. Sec. l, CHI. 104, comp
laws 1879. Therefore the bond remain
liable for all violations discovered or Il
be discovered, committed prior to thu
repeal.
The first section of the act of 1881 re
mains unchanged, making Il a misde
meanor to manufacture, sell or bartel
any intoxicating liquors except for medI
cal, scientific and mechanical puF
| poses.
The second section of the act of 1873
is amended by section 1 of the act O
1885. The change substantially Is tht
requirement of freehold petitions in
stead of citizens and the striking out O
the requirement of any bond by tn
druggist. No bond is required OF drug
| gIsls applying tor permIIs subsequen
| to the passage of the act OF 1885.
CONCERNING PERMITS.
Upon this section you ask, "Whethe
two or more parties engaged In bushes
as firm will be required each and sep
arately to take out permlt?'
And also "Will the prescription clerl
of the druggist be required TO take out
permit?'
| While the section remains unchanged
so far as these questions are concerned
| the courts have not been called upon &
| coustrue the same In these particulars
The section contemplates that the pet
| tiuners should certify to the good mora
character of the applicant or applicants
and that he or they are lawfully engage
in the business of druggists, and thG
the probate judge in granting the pet
ton should be satisfied that the same
true. and that the applicant or applicant
can be entrusted with the responsibility
of selling liquor for the excepted pur
| pose. Where two or more persons, eac
qualified u obtain q permit, desire I
take out one permit Jointly as 9 firm
there can be no objection to their dom
50. They may each do so separately
and therefore there is no reason VIII
| TONERS in such case, however, must Gel
tIfy that each are of good moral charaI
ter, and each are lawfully engaged in th
business of druggists, and the probat
judge must be satisfied that the petitio
is true as to each, and that each are fit I
be trusted with the responsibility.
the case of such joint petition, if th
probate judge is not satisfied in thes
particulars as to any case. he should re
fuse the petition although satisfied col
corning the essentials as to all Ii
others. Under a permit granted to
particular person or to several person
doing business as a firm, only the perso
or persons named therein can sell. TIL
qualifications and the trustworthiness {
any other person was not certified to h
the petitioners, nor passed upon by IL
probate judge. Hence prescriptiC
clerk ar other employee nothaving a pc
NIT of a druggist or firm of druggis
having a permit, cannot sell liquors u
der the permit of his employer or en-
J ployers.
PROBATE JUDGES POWER.
A final question under this section i
, "Can the probate judge exercise Il
: power of revocation given by the ne
> law. upon unexpired permits grant,
under the new law"
He can The permit to sell intn1
eating liquors is not contract. TT
legislature may confer upon the prOba
} Judge power of revocation which d
not exist when the permits were granite
and they have conferred just such pow
in this instance
THE PHYSICIANS
: Section three of the act of 1881
amended bv section two ofthe act
y NrNN' t.
. changed by the amendment except tn
under the circumstances that .wou
!, authorize the giving of a prescriptio
d the physician is authorized to admin
ter the liquor himself. The pfoVisio
5 regarding the affidavit required to
T made by the physicians are omItte
4 and the methods of violating the law |
the physicians are met by q statement
the circumstances under which they W
}, be deemed guilty of misdemeanC
2 The penalty of such violations is al
somewhat changed.
e Section tour OF the act of 1881 is r
D pealed and an altogether new secti,
D substituted therefore by section three
! the act of 1885. The first question VI
ask upon this section Is: Can q dru
8 gist having 4 permit sell intoxicatIl
Z liquors upon The written or print
- | Statement Oh the dppilCaJton alone ?!
J. 1t is my opinion that he can.
i Aud again: "Can u druggist having
i permit sell intoxicating liquors upol
written OF printed prescription witho
s the statement of the applicantY'
; this / answer that he cannot. / "
}, state in this connection that q drugg
Y having a permit may sell to regular
U prScticing physician who is engaged
:, the practice OF his profession any into
i icating liquors upon his written or pri
. ed statement alone that said liquors "
only be used for medical purposes.
Your next question: Can the sts
ments and affidavits required to be fl
every thirty DAYS exactly or merely OF
II a month"; ?"
r In my opinion the legislature conte
plated that there should be a montl
filing.
n Following in this section are cert
IN amplificatiOns of what shall coastit
TO vIolatlons thereof, which il will be "
as To notice: Every person whose statem
" so made for the purpose of obtainI
: intoxicating liquors shall be false in 1