Iron County register., 1888-04-19

/ pure alcohol for medicinal purposes,
while others MAINTAIN that they can
sell any kind of intoxicating liquor un-
/ der the druggists act for those purpos-
| es. I hold the latter view, and for
these reasons: 1st. There being no
! repeating clause, the druggists act, If
repealed at all, is repealed hy implica-
ton only, and repeals by implication
are not favored I'm law. The canon Of
construction is this: Where there is no
repeating clause, if two acts can both
exist and be enforced, neither is re-
pealed. In other words, i'm order for
| the courts to hold that one act repeals
another by Implication, the two acts
must be so inconsistent and repugnant
that both cannot stand. Now in the
case under discussion, the local optien
law and the druggists act are not so
Inconsistent and rppugnant, but that
10th may stand and be enforced. Not
Sc with the Downing law. 1t is legally
| impossible for that law and the local
/ option law both to be in force in the
same county at the same time. They
are emphatically Incompatible with
each other, and hence, when local op-
ton goes into effect, the Downing law
| must be imperative. The latter law
provid.s for the licensing of saloons.
while the former is intended to abolish
| them. Both cannot stand. This Is not
the case, however, with locel optio,i
and the druggists act. There IL nGrh-
ing inconsistent in prohibiting the sale
fof liquor as beverage and at the same
time authorizing its sale as medicine.
Cd. At the same session which enact
ed the local option law the legislature
amended the druggists act In this yery
particular, and / think II cannot ba
fairly argued that the legislature in-
tended to o'repeal an act by another act
when, at the same time, the act alleys
ed to be repealed is amended. ad.
And in the third place hold that Il
even it was intended to repeal the
druggists act in those counties adopt
ing the local option law. the latter law
in that particular is unconstitutional.
The theory upon which the sale of in-
toxicating liquors can be prohibited by
the legislature is that this traffic in an
eUiL which can be prevented by the
exercise of the police power of the
state. There is no question that the
state can, by the exercise of its police
power, prohibit the sale of Intoxicating
liquors as beverage, but | do not con-
cede that this power will authorize the
state to prohibit the sale of liquors
when to be used as curative agents
and medicines in the treatment of dis
eases, under the direction and prescrip-
ton of the medical profession. The
people certainly have a right to be
healed of their maladies, and this right
cannot be taken away, at least by a
legislative enactment. I think the
time has come when the people must
be recognized to have some rights
which legislatures and even majorities
in the state must respect. One of these
rights is the preservation of their
health, and when regular physician
prescribes whiskey, wine, brandy or
other Intoxicating liquor as medicine.
druggist or pharmacist has a right to
fill the prescription and charge for 1t.
But this prescription to authorize the
sale of intoxicating liquors by drug
gist must be made by physician other
words. if druggist is also physician
he cannot first make the prescription
and then fill 1t himself. IF he does
this he is guilty Of misdemeanor.
And the prescription, when made by
the proper physician. must state the
name Of the person for whom the "a me
is intended. and that intoxicating il.
quor is prescribed as a necessary rene.
dy. Druggists are required to preserve
all such prescriptions, and you have a
right to compel them to produce them
for your inspection. The stringent
provisions are intended to prevent
druggists from abusing the privilege
conferred upon them by law. 1t is also
a mooted question as to whether
party can furnish liquors of any kind
at his home or table to his guests. I
do not believe this act was intended to
prohibit this. This law was aimed at
the licensed saloon, and in constituting
It's ambiguous provisions (and they are
numerous) that fact must be Kept
steadily i'm view. To hold that party
may purchase wine or other liquor out
of the county adopting local option,
and take drink at his home or table
within such county, but is forbidden to
allow his guest to partake OF 1t with
him, would be the height of absurdity.
No such result was intended"