Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1888-04-05

The following contains the gist
Judge Fox's instructions to the Madi-
son county grand jury in regard to the
local option law:
Under the provisions of this law, mer-
chants, distilers, druggists and dramshop
keepers are not permitted to sell intoxicating
liquors, with the exception as provided in
| section s. ''ths,t nothing in this act shall be
so construed as to prevent the sale of wine
for sacramental purposes and pure alcohol
for medicinal, mechanical and scientific pur-
poses" The local option law applies to all
persons who may deal in the same. Even if
the physician keeps Intoxicating liquors,
other than alcohol, as part of his stock in
trade, he is not permitted to sell the same as
medicine or to administer it as a part of his
medicine, and charge therefore. 1t Is
generally conceded that merchants and dis
| tillers cannot sell intoxicating liquors in any
| county where local option has been adopted.
If they are persons within the meaning of
section q, that sit shall not be lawful for
any person to sell or barter in any manner
whatever, Intoxicating liquors." am unable
| to conceive under what system of reasoning
| it can be held, that a druggist or phar-
macist is not person within the puryiew of
| that section. As to what persons fall within
| the class, VINO cannot sell, where the local
option act has been adopted, must depend
upon the intent Of the legislature, and such
intent of the law making power must be
determined by the we'll settled principles of
the construction of statutes.
Section s is and was intended by the leg
islature as the only exception to the sale of
intoxicating liquors, and the very terms of
that section are clearly indicative of the in
teution of the law makers that it should be
the only exception to the general provision,
for it provides s. nothing in this act shall be
so constructed as to prevent the sale of wine
for sacramento purposes, nor shall anything
herein contained prevent licensed druggists
or pharmacists from furnishing pure alcohol
for medicinal, art, scientific and mechanical
purposes" Why not, if such was not their
intention, have added to said section that
nothing herein should DE construed to pre-
vent druggists from selling under existing
laws? 1t may be said, in fact it is
argued by some of the profession, that the
amendment of the druggist law, at the aame
session of legislature, at which the local
option act was passed, is an evidence that
the intent was not to include them under
the general provisions, and that section s,
which provides for druggists and pharmacists
selling pure alcohol for medicinal and other
purposes therein mentioned was for the
purpose of permitting them to sell pure al
cohol for medicinal purposes without any
prescription from a physician, which they
could not do under the drug law Is another
strong evidence of the intent of the legisla.
ture not to include druggists within the gen.
eral provision in relation to dealers in in
toXicating liquors. This position is not and
cannot be maintained, under the rules OF
construction. The legislature in passing the
local option law, certainly did not contem-
plate that every county in the State would
adopt it; hence the necessary amendment OF
the drug law for those living in counties
where local option did not exist. The dram
shop law was amended at the same session
of the legislature. Will it be contended that
such amendment is an evidence of intent
on the part of the legislature that dramshop
keepers were not included in the the general
provision, prohibiting the sale of liquor"