The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1903-05-08
this act shall take effect from and
after it's pas sage, the public welfare
requiring it.
paSced Inn O6 1Q02


1t will be observed that section z
which contains the provisos o
both the acts of 1867 and 1887, rea'
exactly the same, and with the on
exception the provisos in the act 0
1899 read exactly as in the othe
two. But the Adams bill has NJ
provisos and amer nds the law as i
then existed.
Now, what was the law at thu
time of the meeting of the Legisla
ture in 1903, and before amended BY
the Adams bill? 1t was that it was
unlawful for any person to sell Of
tipple any intoxicating liquors as &
beverage within tour miles of any
schoolhouse. And this law was
subject only to two existing pro-
visos or exemptions, and that was
as to sales made within incorpor.
ated towns, and if these towns were
incorporated after the act of 1899,
that they have more than two
thousand inhabitants; second, to
sales by manufacturers in wholesale
packages.
The other provisos in the acts OF
1887 and 1899 as to the then exist
ing license was functus officio and
defunct, necessarily expiring by
limitation, as no license could be
issued for a period of more than
twelve months, and more than
twelve months had passed since the
act of 1899; and no simple amend
ment to the valid subsisting por-
tions of an act would re-enact or
revive the defunct proviso without
mention or reference to same.
Suppose the proviso in the act
1899 had said literally what in effect
it oes say, that it exempted those
having license dated 1890 or "be-
fore April IA, 1899," then would it
be insisted that the amendment to
the act by the Adams bill could
have given any right to those hold
ing unexpired license at the date of
the Adams bill?
Again, suppose the General AS
sepbly of 1901 had passed an act
amending the act of 1887 by making
it read within six miles of a school
house instead of four miles, and
with no proviso and nothing more,
would it be insisted that that
amendment renewed or made ef-
fective from that date the license
proviso that had been imperative
and defunct for nearly fifteen
years?
Many other illustrations could be
given showing that such a con-
struction would be absurd.
While our supreme court has not
had before it the direct question
that will arise under the Adams
law, yet consider that the opinion
of the court in the case of Johnson
VS.. State (3rd Lea 470) sustains the
opinion that the provisos in the
acts of: 1887 and 1899 in regard to
unexpiring licenses are functus
oficio, imperative and defunct,
and are not revived or brought for
ward by the Adams law.
That was a case where the char
.er of the town of Hartsv11le was
'epealed while Johnson held unex-
oired license to sell liquor in the
own, and he claimed that the
granting of the license was such a
contract, and gave him such a priv
lege during the time for which the
icense was to run that the same
ould not be defeated before the ex-
'iration of his license, even by the
-bolition of the charter Of the town.
Johnson continued to sell after
he charter had been abolished and
1artsville was an unincorporated
own, and was indicted under the
ct of 1877. He defended on the
round above stated and alone by
irtue of the proviso of the act as to
license. He was convicted
nd conviction affirmed by the su-
RENE court, the court holding-and
hat is no longer open to question
hat the mere fact of having unex- .
ired license when the charter of