Amador ledger., 1905-06-16
THE CODES AND THE
LIQUOR BUSIN ESS.

AlSSOOIS Dublin EtoO.
As there is much interest taken in
the revision of the codes by the last
Legislature, as affecting the sale OF
liqour, we have taken the trouble to
look into the matter, and herewith
present the result, showing the law
as it stood before the codification by
the code commissioner, and the law
as it now stands as codified. Before
the code commissioner and last leg
islature muddled the question, the
law was embodied in secion 172 of
the penal code, and three acts bear
ing on the restriction of the sale of
liquor within certain limits. These
provisions are as follows:
Sec 172 Every person who, within
two miles OF the land belonging to
this state, upon which the state
prison is situated, or within one mile
of the insane asylum at Napa, or
within one mile of the grounds be-
longing and adjacent to the Univer-
isity of California in Alameda coun-
ty, or in the state capitol, OF within
the limits of the grounds adjacent
and belonging thereto, sells, gives
away or exposes for sale any vinous
or alcoholic liquors, is guilty of a
misdemeanoI.
An act to prevent the sale of intox-
icating liquors in the immediate
vicinity of soldiers homes approved
March 26, 1895.
Sec EVERY person who sells or
gives away any ale, beer, wine, cider,
or other intoxicating liquors within
one and one half mile outside of the
boundary line of the lands occupied
by any home, retreat, or asylum for
disabled volunteers, soldiers, or
soldiers and sailors, which has been,
or may hereafter be established by
the government of the United States,
within the state. of California, is
guilty of misdemeanor. " etc.
An act to prohibit the sale of in
toxicating liquor in the state capital
Approved and in effect April 16,
1886.
Sec Amy person or persons hav-
ing in charge or control the state
capital building and allowing the
same, or any portion thereof to be
used for the sale or distribution in
any manner, tor profit, of any malt
or spirituous liqours, shall be guilty
Of mlsdemeanor," etc.
These were the laws as they existed
prior to the action OF the legislature.
These three provisions have, under
the touch of the code commissioner,
been coditied into the present sec
tion of the penal code, which has
caused so much discussion, and
which reads as follows:
Sec 172-Every person who within
two miles OF the land belonging to
this state upon which any state
prison or reformatory is situated, or
within one mile of the grounds be-
longing and adjacent to the Univer-
slty of California, or within one and
one-half miles of the land occupied by
any home, retreat, or asylum for dis
abled volunteers, soldiers or sailors
or to be established by this
state or by the United States within
this state, or within the state capitol,
or within the limits of the grounds
adjacent and belonging thereto, sells,
gives away, or exposes for sale any,
vinous or acholic liquors, is guilty of
a misdemeanor. "
In a note explanatory of the section
as amended it is said.
The amendment consolidates the
provision of the present (old) section
l72 with codification of the statues
of 1884 page II; 1880, page 80, and
1895, page 161, relating to the uni
versity, soldiers homes and state
capitol. There is no new legislation
in the section.
The statement that there is no
new legislation will be received with
a gasp in view of the effect which
the recodIfied section has had in the
town of lone and elsewhere, which,
we're not affected by the old section.
The truth is it contains great deal
of new legislation, which is plain
from a comparison of the old with
the new law. The word "reforma-
tories is inserted; Napa asylum is
left out, and Alameda county is left
out in the limitation of the univer-
sity grounds, so that it now applies
to all the property of the university
whether IN Alameda or San Francis
CO. Towns are affected that we're not
affected before; and Napa which was
concerned in the old section is re-
leased under the new. 1t is a sweep
ing and radical change. That it
should pass the ordeal of both
branches of the legislature without
its tremendously enlarged scope
being detected is astounding, and can
only be explained on the theory that
the legislators depended upon the
judgment of the code commissioner
who recommended the change.
THE CHlILDREN'S FAVORITE.