The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-17
QUART SHOP ARGUMENT
VALIDITY OF THE 1897 ACT BEING
ARGUED IN SUPREME COURT.
Wholesale Liquor Dealers Contestine
the Law--POints i'm Which 1t Is
Said to Be Defective.

The oral argument involving the validity
and construction of the quart shop law OF
1897 consumed several hours before the SUI
preme Court yesterday morning. Merrill
Moores made the argument for the State
and c. A. Korbly William p. Breen, of
Fort Wayne, and Daniel Waite Howe pre-
scented the case for the quart shop dealers.
The law of 1897 was designed to extend
the provisions of the Nicholson law over
dealers selling liquor in quantities exceed
ing q quart at a time wholesalers selling
more than fifteen gallons at a time being
exempted. But though the Nicholson law
provides a penalty for failure to obtain a
license for 500 and for other infractions of
the law on the part of those selling less
than quart at time, the law of 1897 omits
to extend this penalty over the quart shop
dealers. The effect of the law, therefore,
the counsel for the quart shop dealers
maintained, is that while these dealers are
subject to license of $1O0 there is no pen
atty provided for their failure to obtain the
license. Merrill Moores, the assistant at
torney general, on the other hand, main
tanned that the general license law of 1917
is applicable TO the present case. This law
was designed to provide "a penalty, varying
from S. to $500, wherever the statutes fixing
licenses omitted to do SO. Two decisions of
the Supreme Court were cited in the argu-
ment relative to this general penalty act.
In 1876 Judge Niback denied that the act
did not apply to liquor licenses, but at that
time there was no defect in the liquor Ii
cense law. In 1881 Judge Woods ruled that
the act was intended to apply in all cases
whatever in which statutes fixing licenses
were defective regarding the penalty. Mr.
Moores argued that these two decisions
other side held differently. 1t was also
argued by the opposing counsel that an old
law like the. general penalty act cannot
be made applicable to new crime.
POINTS OF ATTACK.
The lawyers attacking the law of 1897 also
contended that the law having expressly
provided for the punishment of dealers SELL
ing less than quart at a time without a
license and having made no penalty pro-
vision as to sales of quantities of a quart
or more it was the intention Of the Legisla-
ture that a man should not be punished who
sold in greater quantities that quart with
out a license. They also made the argument
that the act was unconstitutional as class
legislation, in that it provided that only
male residents could be licensed, thus ex-
Guiding corporations. partnerships, women
and residents OF other States. Ihey SAID It
was also class legislation because 1T pro
Vided a severer penalty for those selling
less than a quart without license than the
general license statute provided for those
selling more than a quart. They lastly
contended that the law was a violation of
Section 147 of the United States Constitu~
ton because it denied to citizens of other
States the same rights accorded those of
this State.
The fight against the law is being waged
largely by the wholesale dealers who, by
the enactment, are made amendable to the
Nicholson act. Most of these dealers sell
in less quantities than fifteen gallons and
1yhfl
for closing screens, etc, would work no
hardship upon them and the license fee of
500 would not be a particular burden. they
nevertheless are attacking the law with all
the efforts they can command. 1t is said
that the reason for their opposition lies
largely in the fact that the quart shops and
drug stores, which are also said to be
amendable to the act. are among their best
customers The wholesalers now pay a
United States retail license for selling in
less quantities than fifteen gallons but they
never have had to pay state license.