Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1885-03-20
TELEGRAPHIC.
The NawLlouor Law.

me New Liquor Law.
KANSAS CITY, March 1a-The Journal
tomorrow will publish lengthy opinion of
Attorney General Bradford, of Kansas, on
the prohibition liquor law. addressed to
Charles Curtis, county attorney Of Shawnee
county. The attorney general reviews the
general status of the act Of 1881 as amended
BY the act Of 'S5, which took effect March 10,
IS. The act of 81 he says is still
il. force except us amended. The only sec
tons amended are 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 3, u, IL and
81. The construction and decision of the
higher court upon so mrch of the original
act us remains unchanged are therefore au-
thority for the Interpretation Of the law as it
now exists. With reference to the amended
sections in so far AS the provisions thereof
are the same NJ the provisions
of the original sections they should
be construed NJ continuation of the old
law and not as new enactment. You may
inquire: Can persons be now prosecuted for
acts committed prior to the enactment of
the law of '85, and are druggists permits is
sued under the act of 1881, and unexpired
by limitation still good in law? Each Of
these questions are answered in the affirma-
tive, upon authority of the several provis-
ions OF the subdivision, first of section J.,
chapter 20f, compiled laws of 1879. A re-
peal of IA statute does not effect any penalty
incurred under or by virtue of the statute.
This is an answer to the first question. The
provisions of any statute as far as they are
the same as those Of prior state shall be
construed rs a continuation of such provis-
ions and not rs u new enactment. The pro-
visions for obtaining permit are the same
now as they were by the prior law, except
that freehold instead of citizen petitioners
are now required. This is an answer to the
second question, but you ask: What is the
status of the bond given under the act of
1884, where the druggist continues to sell
under the old permits. The amendatory act
repeats absolutely the bond provisions and
no bond is now required, the bond given is
therefore not held tor violations committed
subsequent to taking effect of the act of SIS,
but the bonds remain liable for all violation
prior to the repeal. The attorney general
further holds that two or more persons en-
gagged as firm can take out a permit joint
ly as firm, and that prescription clerk
cannot sell liquors under the permit of
his employer or employers. Further, that
the probate judge can exercise the power Of
revocation given by the new law upon ex-
pired permits granted under the ole law.
sell liquors upon a written or printed stfte-
meut Of the applicant alone, but cannot
sell upon prescription without the written
or printed statement of the applicant. Re-
plying to the query: Does the law intend
that prepared medicines containing sufficient
alcohol to intoxicate, when sold in good
faith as medicines and not as beverages, shall
be sold as intoxicants upon a state
ment or prescription and statement
us in the case of liquors? He says
the question depends upon a question of fact
that cannot here be determined. The fol-
lowing quotation from the Intoxicating
liquor cases, % Kansas, 15l, will explain
what | mean: "If the compound or prepar
alton be such that the distinctive character
and effect Of the intoxicating liquors are
gone that its Use AS an intoxicating beverage
Is practically impossible by reason of the
other ingredients, it is not within the statute;
on the other hand, if the Intoxicating liquor
remains as "a distinctive force in the COM
pound, and such compound is reasonably
liable 10 be used as an Intoxicating
beverage, it is within the statute.
The element Of good faith in the sale does
not avail the druggist if the jury decide that
the compound falls within the last named
class. The amendments of the act of 1881
BY the act Of 1885 do not weaken or over
turn any of the decisions Of the supreme
court constituting the original act. As to
the inquiry: Are examinations of witnesses
summoned by the county attorney to be
public or private? am of the opinion that
il is in the discretion of the county attorney
To conduct such examinations in public or
private as may best advance
the Interests of justice. The