Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1889-09-19
THE LAWS DEFECT.
Judge Miller Claims That Prchibi
lion Does Not Legally Prohibit
liduoy Selling.

There IS no penalty atticheu l"
boot logging whiskey in Kansas or sell
ing it in joints provided the necessary
government license has frat been Sc
cured, remarked Judge J. II Miller
Of Winfield, yesterday. i
This remark at once drew forth cx-
CARNATIONS Of surprise from several per
sons present, aud the lawyer was asked .
to explain.
Il mean BIZ that, he said by way OF .
explanation. that the Murray law, IN .
stead Of GOVERN. what it was intended 4
for. has left the statutes in such con
dition tina. 80 penalty is prescribed for
man selling whiskcy aside from a
druggist or manufacturer In 1850 the
prohibition amendment to the constl-
tuition was voted upon and adopted By
the people Of Kansas. In 1881 the
/ legislature passed an at in pursuance
( of n, auneadn"st and charter i2S Of
| the session laws g! 1881 vas The first
prohibition law. Seton : oi that act
/ fixed the psualiy Ia 1885 the lrsisla-
ture enacted chapter 10 Of the session
laws Of that year. and amended section
: of chapter l29 Of 1881, by section :
Of chapter 10. of the session laws of
1850, and repcaliHg the original section
! Of 1881. so that the amended section
:. Of chapter 10. session laws of 1888,
reads as follows: Sec. .. Penalty for
selling without permit: Any person
without taking ont and having permit
to scli intoxicating liquors. as provided
IN this act. or any person not lawfully
| and in good faith engaged in the bust
ness Of = druggist, who shall directly
or indirectly sell or barter any spirit
uous. malt. yinous. fermentcd or other
Intoxicating liquors, shall be deemed
guilty OF misdemcaHor. aad upon con
yiction thereof shall be fined in any
sum not less than one hundred dollars
nor more than FIVE hundred dollars, and
be imprisoned in the county jail not less
than thirty DAYS nor more than ninety
days.
.On March }, 1887, tn legislature
enacted the Murray law, and by SO
doing repealed the above section I Of
chapter li9 Of The session laws of 1885,
aud in is zeal to sweep everything did
Eot enact another section in its place.
The repeal IF tins section, which is
made By section 10 Of the Murray law,
left the law in such manner that no
penalty is provided for selling liquor.
The law provides 4 penalty for drug
gists and manufacturers, and also for
maintaining public nuisance, but in
the latter instance it only applies to the
owner or keeper of joint, and does
5 not apply to man who may be tempo
rarily engaged in selling liquor; as he is
neither the proprietor or keeper of the
place. and in his case no court has juris-
dictiop to render penalty upon him.
' According to the strict letter of the
Murray law, 20 officer has right to
raid Il Joint and cop!iscate the goods
. therein until court has declared the
same after trial, a common nuisance.
and | believe man would be justified
in shooting an officer down like a burg
lar whenever he attempts to break into
f his place of business FOR the purpose OF
destroying his property, without first
c having obtained due authority from the
court. Another important fact worth
$ mentioning is, that men have been fined
in the police court for selling liquors
: when their was no law auth riz NJ the
e fine for such acts. There is nothing
in the state law that fixes a penalty fol
selling liquor but the city ordinance,
at least it has been Interpreted as such
n imposes fine of not less shan SlU0 nor
4 more than $500 As no city has a right
to impose a fine beyond that prescribed
a by the state, the ordnance of the city
e of Wichita bearing upon that point is
9 Illegal.
e 1T has been generally understood
: that the majority of the members of the
;. city council were anti prohibitionIsts:
;, but the punishment they have prescrib
4 ed for persons selling beer and whiskey
: in the city, would naturally lead one tc
believe they were stronger prohibition
lists than those who framed the Murray
law. fit is revenue for the city tina,
{ the council desires. | think it would b,
l. a much better plan for that body to re
II wise that ordinace and place the penal
r ty at, say $25, as that amount would
invariably be paid, and it would put al
n end to tie large number of appeals tina
" are taken in whiskey cases.-Wichit;
g Beacon.