Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-10-10
MIR. DUNoAN's STORY.
What He Has to Say Of the Drug Store
Tobacco Case.

To the Editor:
In Thursday nights issue Of the
Deseret News an editorial appeared in
which comments upon the case against
the Lloyd Drug company were made,
and among others that "the law was
clearly violated" In fairness to Mr.,
Lloyd, Il seems that both sides of the
case should have been heard before
expressing such an opinion,
The Walker boy came to Mr. Lloyd's
store and said he wished to buy cigars
for Mr.. Whitaker, who was a customer
of the store and In the habit of buying
cigars. The boy was well known TO
the clerk and Mr., Lloyd and II was
well known by them that he did not
smoke. AS TO the prior alleged sale,
which was not charged in the COM
plant, the defendants were ready to
prove that II did not occur
II happened that the cigars purchased
were not for Mr.. Whitaker but that
the boy simply used that name and
the boy simply used that name and at
ter procuring the cigars gave them to
Mrs. Simpklns, who had evidently In
structed the boy to make the misrepre-
sentation in order to induce the sale and
thus get evidence against Mr.. Lloyd,
However that may be, IL the boy was
telling the truth, he was the agent of
Mr.. Whitaker and the sale was not to
the minor but to a person legally au-
thori2ed to purchase cigars, The
statutes of most of the states are SINH
lar to ours, and the courts I'm constru-
ing them have almost uniformly held
that where the minor dlscloses the
name of his principal and cigars or
liquor are delivered to the minor for
such principal the dealer Is not guilty
OF selling or delivering cigars to
minors within the meaning OF such
statutes. The supreme court of Con-
necticut says II would seem to be with
I'm the letter of the statute, but II Is
clearly not within its spirit, The OBJ
teet of the law Is not to prevent the
use OF minors as messengers or agents,
but to prevent the sale of tobacco to
them for their own use. The sale or
delivery is not to the minor, but to
the person he represents, If the boy
was not telling the truth, there was no
sale or delivery to any one, for the use
OF such person, and the boy was guilty
OF obtaining goods under false pre-
lenses,
This may be "sophlstry' as the writer
of the editorial referred to calls H. but
IL is the reasoning adopted and fol-
lowed by the highest courts i'm nearly
all the states where the question has
been presented. II a minor cannot act
az a messenger or agent in such a case,
the legislature should pass n law to
that effect.
The statutes forbiddng the sale or
delivery OF tobacco to minors Is n good
law and efforts TO enforce IL are GER
tainly worthy, but when resort is had
to deceit In order to convict innocent
persons, this means is worse than the
evil sought to be prevented, II is more
important that the boy should be
truthful than that he should not use
tobacco, and the wrong i'm this case, II
any, was caused by the boys dishon-
esty. II people would teach their chill
dren to tell the truth, they would not
be so likely to contract the habit OF
using tobacco and more good could
be thus accomplished, than by perse-
cutting dealers In order to crafty mall
ice or prejudice.
a. A. DUNCAN.
oct. 10, 1903.