The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-20

CAN BE SOLD ONLY ON PHYSI-
CLANS PRESCRIPTIONS.
EvlpENT MISTAKE IN REV. NUE. LAW
Due Probably to Carelessness # Clerk. Some
Lawyers Think Mr.. Worth is Wrong
and The Courts May be Called
On 10 Set lie II.

mo liquor can he sold from ulSpeh-
sary except the party holds prescription
from practicing physician"
This is the ruling Of State Treasurer
Worth made yesterday in answer to a
letter of inquiry from MIR. Meade A.
Kelsey. of High Point The letter IN
full is as follows:
Yours Of the 18TH, saying That you
had seen that some provision restricting
the sale Of liquor ut dispensaries to those
holding physicians prescriptions ana ask
ing information on this point is received.
In reply | will quote You an extract
from the law. which says that this
section shall apply to all dispensaries.
That is the last clause of section "A,
Revenue Act. Laws 1899. Preceding this
clause is the following provision: THAT
this act shall not authorize any drug
gist to sell spirituous, vinous or malt
liquors except upon the prescription of
a practicing physician as now allowed
by law" / hold therefore. that no liquor
can he sold from Il dispensary except
the party holds prescription from j
practicing physician. The law is very
plain and explicit on this subject, and
applies to all tlispensaries in the State.
The News and Observer on April 9th
called attention to this evident error in
the Revenue Law. in the following
words, which more fully explain it.
Section "A for the Revenue Act inn
poses a license tax of 2 per cent on
purchases Of liquor dealers in addition
to the nd valorem tax on their stock
and also an annual license tax of $50
on druggists dealing III spirituous liquors.
'.At the end of the section the follow
ing provisos are added:
Provided. that this net shall not au-
thorize any druggist to sell spirituolls,
vinous or malt liquors except upon the
prescription of a practicing physician, as
now allowed by law; provided, in towns
with less than five hundred inhabitants.
and in towns where the sale of liquor is
prohibited by law. twenty-five dollars
shall be the license: Provided. that THIS
SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALI,
DISPENSARIES
Treasurer Worth thinks the last pro.
viso mistake. 1t was evidently meant
to apply to the tax only. but il applies
as well to the provision EXCEPT
UPON THE PRESCRIPTION OF A
PRACTICING PHYSICIAN.
'.,Those who are familiar with the dis
pensary legislation enacted by the Leg
islature will recall that it was at first
proposed TO tax dispensaries just as
other dealers in liquor are taxed. 1t
was at this time. probably. that this
provisO was added to the section
Then it was suggested that the reve,
niue derived from dispensaries be put into
the general school fund instead of in the
school fund of the county in which ii
was collected. This amendment was
defeated and graduated tax on dispen-
sares was adopted as follows:
Each dispensary i'll the State shall
pay annually into the State Treasury the
following franchise taxes: L. Each dis
pensary for a town of less than one
thousand people. fifty dollars 2 Each
dispensary for township in any county
the sum of two hundred dollars. g. Each
dispensary for a town of more than one
thousand inhabitants and not exceeding
three thousand inhabitants, the sum of
two hundred dollars. 4. Each dispen,
sary for a town or city of more than
three thousand inhabitants and not ex-
ceeding six thousand inhabitants, three
hundred dollars. 3. Each dispensary for
a town or city of more than six thousand
inhabitants and each dispensary for a
county, five hundred dollars And il
shall be the duty of all managers of dis
pensaries to pay to the county treasurer
for the benefit of the school fund of the
county in which such dispensaries are
located all the taxes herein imposed on
such dispensaries.'
AS the above was put in as a separate
and distinct section. the little one line
proviso to section "a was no doubt over
looked and thus allowed TO stand
As it is plainly mistake and will have
the effect of breaking up all dispensaries
in the State, it will very likely have
to be passed upon by the courts.
There are some prominent members
of the bar who do not think the State
Treasurer's ruling, taken in connection
with other dispensary legislation, will
stand the test of the courts.
This, nor any other part of the Reve.
nue. Act is repeating legislation" said
one, land cannot be taken as repealinp
the law establishing dispensaries and rhe
carefully prepared rules for their regula.
ton passed by the Legislature"
-----
MIR TOprrnN WIZ r,ycn~r rNY,,e,