The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-03-27
THE PRoHrslToRY LAW.

The PHOHfBtVOHr LAW.
ne Attorney General Writes = Lengthy
Opialon Upon she New Law Passed by
the Legisiature-Ths Old Law and the
N-vIAntsresting Reading for Whom Il
May Concern.
In response to numerous inquiries re-
.eived at his Office, and more particularly to
,ne from the County Attorney of Shawnee
County, Attorney Generel Bradford has
given his views upon the Prohibitory laws
Is follows:
TOPEKA, KAN, March Il, 1885,
Charles Curtis, Esq. County Attorney Of
Shawnee County, Topeka, Kan:
DEAR SIR;-In answering the various cues
tons you ask CONCERNING the new Prohibitery
will review the general status OF the law on
this subject !. O., the act of 1sSl as amended
and supplemented by the act OF 1855, which
The act Of 1891 is still in force except as
amended. The only scctio ns amended are
2, 3, 4, 49, 2. L, 10 and q. The construction
and decisions OF the higher courts upon so
changed are therefore authority for the in
depreciation of the law Rs 1t now
exists. With reference to the amended
sections, in SO far as the provisions thereof
are the same as the provisions OF the origi-
nal sections. they should be construed as
a continuation of tho old law and not as
new enactment. tSectiOn l. chapter 14. Com
piled Laws In this connection you NAV i'm
quire: Can persons be now prosecuted for
acts committed prior to the enactment of the
law of ISS5?"
And, Are druggists permits issued under
the act of 1881 and unexpired by limitation
still good in lawf'
Each of these questions arc answered in
several provisions of subdivision nrst of
section 1, chapter 1G4, compiled laws 1873:
The repeal of 4 statute does not Affect any
penalty incurred under or by virtue of the
first question. The provisions of any statute,
go far as they are the same as those of q
prior statute, shall be construed as con-
unuation of such provisions, and not as
A NEW ENACTMENT.
The provisions for obtaining permit are
the same now as they were b. the prior law,
except that freehold instead of citizen petit
TONERS are now required. Such provisions
as are the same are as y continuation of the
former act and not as new enactment.
This is an answer to the second question: 1t
mits granted under the law of 1881, prior to
their expiration.
But you ask: what is the status of tho
bond given under the act of 1881, where
druggist continues to sell under his old per-
mUg'
The amendatory act repeats absolutely tho
bond provisions and no bond Is now re-
quired. The bond given is therefore not held
for violations committed subsequent TO the
taking effect of the act of 1876. The repeal
of "a statute does not affect any rights
which accrued, or liabilities incurred under
the statute repealed. tSectiOn i, Chapter l84
Comp. Lawsl. Therefore the bond remains
liable for all violations discovered or 10 be
discovered, committed prior to the repeal
The first section of the act of 1881 remains
unchanged, making it q misdemeanOr to
manufacture. sell or barter intoxicating
liauSr except for medicinal n scientific tf, and
the act of 1881 is amended by Section of the
act of 1885. The change substantially is the
requirement of freehold petitioners instead
of citizens, and the striking out of the re-
Iuirement of any bond by the druggist. No
bond is required of druggists applying for
permits subsequent to the passage OF the act
of i7a5. Upon this section you ask: "Wheth-
er two or more sparties engaged in business
as q firm will be required each separately to
take out permit
the druggist be required to take out q per-
mitr'
While the section remains unchanged so
far as these questions are concerned, the
courts have not been called upon to construe
the same in these particulars. The section
contempates that the petitioner should
certify to
THE GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
of the applicant or applicants. and that he or
they are lawfully engaged i'm the business of
druggists, and that the Probate Court in
granting the petition should be satisfied that
the came is true and that the applicant or
applicants can be entrusted with the reSpOn-
sibIlity of selling liquor for the excepted
purposes. Where two or more persons, each
qualified to obtain a permit. desire to take
out one permit, jointly, as q firm. there can
he no objection to their doing so. They may |
each do so separately; and therefore. there |
ia no reason why they may rot do so Jointly. |
The petitioners in such case. however. must |
certify that each are of good moral charac- |
ter, and each are lawfully engaged in the
must be satisfied that the petition is true as. |
to each and that each are fit to be trusted |
with this responsibility.
In the case OF such Joint petition, II tho |
Probate Judge is not satisfied in these par |
ticulars as to any one, he should refuse the |
petition, although satisfied concerning the |
essentials =, 70 all the other Under per
eral persons doing business as firm. only \
the person or persons named therein
can sell The otSer and the
was not certified to by the Pc
Litioners nor passed on by the Probate /
Judge. Hence prescription clerk or other
employe not having permit of druggist |
Dr. firm of druggists having permit can not |
sell liquors under the permit Of his employer
Dr. employers.
Can the Probate Judge exercise the power
Of revocation given by the now law. upon
lnexPifed permits granted under the old
awy
He can. The permit to sell Intoxicating
liquors is not a contract. The Legislature
may confer upon the Probate Judge q power
IF revocation which did not exist when the
permits we're granted. And they have con-
TERED just such power in this instance.
Section of the act of 1881 is amended by
section of the act of 1885. The first part of
nent except that under the circumstances
hat would authorize the giving of a pre-
cription the physician IL authorized
TO ADMIEIsTER THE LIQUOR HIMSELF.
The provisions regarding the affidavit re-
luired to be made by the physician arc
united. and the methods of violating the
aw by the physicians are met by q state
nent of the circumstances under which he
will be deemed guilty of misdemeanor. Tho
hanged.
N altogether new section substituted thero-
or by section of the act of 1855. The first
question you ask upon this section is: Can
druggist having a permit sell Intoxicating
nel Of the applicant alone!'
1t Is my opinion that he can.
And again: Can druggist, having per-
nit, sell Intoxicating liquors upon written
II printed prescrpto on without the state
nent Of the Applicant
To this / answer that he cannot. I will
tate in this connection that a druggist hav-
ng permit may sell to a regular practicing
h ySicinn, who is engaged in the practice of
rs profession, any intoxicating liquors upon
rs written or printed statement alone, that
aid liquors will only be used for medicinal
urposes.
Your next question:
Are the statements and affidavit required
0 be filed every thirty days exactly, or mere
Y once month";
in my opinion the Legislature contem-
lated that there sholld he a monthly filing"
Following in this section are certain ampli-
cations of what shall constitute violations
hereof, which it will be well to notice:
Every person whose statement so made for
he purpose of obtaining Intoxicating liquors
hall be false in any material matter shall be
eemed
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.
very person who shall sell or furnish any |
T the liquors thereon obtained to others as
beverage shall be deemed guilty of q mis-