Mexico weekly ledger., 1888-04-05
"strict Construction" !"
,s Editor Of The Ledger

I'M your issue of the 9th inst, a
well written editorial, wherein,
from q wet standpoint, you
ably discuss the provisions oi
the Wood Local Option amend
ment to the dram-shop law Of this
State. In that article You insist
upon a strict construction Of the
law. Perhaps it would not be pro-
per for me to say that in the light
of your criticism | judge you to be
Iopposed to the Law, but viii state,
as a matter of fact, that the line OF
argument laid down in your article
is the one universally adopted by
the enemies of Local Option,
believe one of the New Testa-
ment writer's has said, "It is the
letter of the law that killeth, but
its spirit that maketh alive Thar
lis just as true in regard to human
as to divine law. The friends OF
Local Option will be satisfied with
an Interpretation that is prompted
by the same spirit in which other
laws are expounded. If Judge
Hughes charged the Pike county
Grand Jury as you say he did, he
must of necessity hold that the
Wood law repeals that part of the
''act regulating pharmacists and
druggists" which provides in what
manner intoxicating liquors may
be dispensed under the drug law,
so called. So far as heard from,
one other Circuit Judge holds with
Judge Hughes and three against
him. III am correctly informed,
Mr.. Wood, the author of the Local
Option law, also holds against
Judge Hughes.
You say, eff the words used in
the Local Option act are to have
their ordinary common-sense mean
ing, and the rules of constituting
conflicting statutes are to be adj
hered to, then the construction
given by Judge Hughes is the cor
rect one." Now, the rule is that
repeals by implication are not
favored, but that where there is q
seeming conflict between two sta
tutes, the latter one containing nc
repeating clause, must be SO con-
strued as to let the prior one stand,
If possible. There is no repeating
clause in the Wood law. The
Local Option act is an amendment
to the old dram-shop law, and re.
lates exclusively to the sale of in.
toxicating liquors. There is not a
word said, either in its title OF
body, about physicians prescrip.
tions, or compounding the same by
licensed pharmacists. You quote
from section 6, "It shall not be law.
/ full for any person within the limits
of such county to sell intoxicating
liquor, ETC." Commenting there.
on, you insist on putting the phar.
macist in with the common herd
and claim that he is governed by
! the same law that they are. A
"close construction will demon.
strate that to be an error. A little
farther on in your article you con.
eede the point, for you say that the
provisions of section 6 make it un
lawful for ssany person whomso
ever" to sell Intoxicating liquor
etc. The word "whomsoever" il
not coupled with the words "any
tperson" in section 6, nor is it uset
anywhere from the beginning tt
the end of the law. The words
"any person" do not mean with
out exception, but ''any persor
whomsoever" takes in all.
You say it would be preposter
Gus to have two laws on the sam,
subject, thereby enabling the Prose
cutting Attorney and the Crane
Jury to make fish of one offende
and flesh of another 1t may seen
strange to you, sir, but that is jus
what they have been compelled
; to do under the law for years past
The pharmacist being indicted, i
at all, for selling liquor contrary t
the drug law, and if found guilt,
made to pay the penalty prescribe'
; in said law, namely, not less thai
, 500 nor more than $500, and fo
: a second oIfiense, in addition /
said fine, have his Incense as phal
macist revoked. This is sever
+, enough to satisfy the averag
crank
Such of the balance of mankin
!, as have sold liquor without q Ii
! cense, being subject to indictmen
, and punishment under the milde
> provisions of the old dram-sho
!. law, were constituted a favore
: class. You see we have, for year
; past, had two kinds of license
liquor dealers. The Local Optic
!, law only deals with one class, tn
. favored one heretofore, an
i wherever it prevails that class mus
go. Not so with the other.
The "liquor traffic is carrie
on, and always has been, by tn
{ licensed saloon, and the dogger
b keepers. Their name is legior
and for such the Local Option la
is made. The other class, the L
censed pharmacist, has by th
= law maker been thrown into
|, ''fiock by himself" and there W
8 propose to leave him.
j, LOCAL OPTION.
III The editorial referred to aboy