Fitzgerald enterprise. (Fitzgerald, Ga.) 1895-1912, 1908-10-08
Near-Beer Dealers Must
Pay That $500 License
Law Is Sound, Says Judge Ellis.

begin on the first of January and
close with the 31st of December,
but the legislature evidently in
tended the calendar year for which
the license was to run to in that
commencing with January and
ending with December, and it in
tended to enact a license fee for
any part of that period. This is
apparent from the wording of the
act, and from the further fact that
any other construction would
bring this revenue to the state
probably on as many days as there
are in the year, and thus bring ex-
ira trouble and some confusion to
the states finances.
He denies that the contention to
the effect that the law is arbi-
trary in that legislation had al
ready been provided placing a tax
on persons engaged in similar bust
ness is sound.
INJURIOUS TO HEALTH AND
MORALS.
The court discusses at much
length the argument that the act
is in violation Of that part of the
constitution which gives to the
people of this state the right to
engage with freedom in the buying
or selling Of anything not inju-
rious to public morals or health
and that it is not pretended that
substitutes for intoXicants are in
furious, for if they were intOXi-
eating their sale would be illegal
under the prohibition law. The
court states that the legislature
made it clear that no license
should be granted for the sale of
anything obnoxious to the prohi-
bition law, but that the question
of substitutes for intoxicants be-
ING injurious to nublic health or
morals is an open one.
cit may be-" Judge Ellis goes
on to say, ''that the legislature at
it's last session, being more expe-
rienced than at the first, might
have concluded that the real ar
ticles, in the use if not the abuse,
may have been less hurtful than
the limitations, but, having laid
real articles under strict prohibi-
ton, they would deal with the
substitutes by license tax there
on. The inherent right to buy,
sell and deal in property of any
kind not hurtful has always been
coupled with governmental re-
strictions, and oftimes with pO-
lice regulatio depending on
time, place and circumstances"
He dismisses as purely techni
cal the objection that "alcoholic
liquors" appears in the act and
pot in the caption.
He dismisses with few words
the contentious that the act is un.
constitutional in that it deals with
two subject matters, appropriates
funds for an object already dealt
with in the general appropriation
bill, and that the tax is not uni
form.
TAXES ON NEAR BEER.
The judge states that the argu-
ment to the effect that the act APP
propriates money raised from such
source to the penitentiary system
in the face OF the constitutional
provision diverting all money rails
ed from taxes on spurious and. al
coholic liquors to the school fund,
as, in the opinion of the court, the
strongest Que made.
eff this act," he states, "under
consideration levies special tax
upon near beer and near beer is
malt liquor within the meaning
of the expression used III the con-
stitution, then an attempt to levy
special tax for any other than
educational purposes would be I'M
constitutional.
He argues, however, in view of
tho fact that Incar- hnpr while con