Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-02-18
Attorney General Byers Holds
That Corporations Can Not
Own Saloons
AFFECTS so PER CENT IN IOWA
Breweries Own Many Saloons in Var
ious Cities of the State = Ruling
Will Be- Tested in Court by the
Liquor Interests-Text of Byers'
Findings.
Special to Tines-Republican.

4 SOoClal i1DleS-hepuUllCdN
Des Moines, Feb. 1S.-The brewer
les and saloons Of Iowa have been
placed in a peculiar position by a rul-
ing made by Attorney General Byers
Mr.. Byers holds that corporations car
not own saloons, and as about half
the retail liquor establishments of the
state are the property Of the brewer
les, the decision is far reaching.
The opinion was ELECTED by inquiry
submitted by the executive council and
the decision was transmitted to the
council yesterday morning by General
| Byers.
| Applications had been made to the
council for permission under the Peter
son law to issue corporation capital
stock in exchange for valuable saloon
property. The question arose as to
whether a corporation could lawfully
own saloon. 1t was submitted forth
with to the attorney general.
The opinion of General Byers Will
force the saloon business to be done by
individuals who will be personally re-
sponsible for the debts and other obil-
cations incurred in the business. Its
text is as follows:
State of Iowa; office of attorney
general Gentlemen: 1 am in receipt
of your communication of the 3lst
ultimo, requesting, an opinion as to
whether or not Corporation may le-
gally engage in the business of selling
Intoxicating liquors at retail in this
state,
"There is no express provision in our
law relating to this question. The ques-
ton. however. is not whether there is
ting a corporation from engaging i'll
the business of selling liquor, but
whether or not there is any provision
in the mulct law authorizing cor
poration as such to engage in the bus
mess of selling intoxicating liquors at
retail.
"Unless it is authorized expressly or
by implication the privilege does not
exist, for the reason that prohibition is
still the law in Iowa. and the sale OF
liquor under the mulct law becomes
lawful only upon the full compliance
of the provisions under said act, which
operates as bar to the penalties pre-
scribed in the prohibtory liquor law.
! "There is not only an absence of eX-
press authority to- be found in the
mulct law authorizing a corporation to
sell Intoxicating liquors at retail, but
icio nf Sai1 arf TO
be based upon the idea that the privi-
lege and responsibility of selling in
toxicating liquors at retail is a per-
sonal one. While the term person
may include corporations, yet this does
not follow where the act taken as a
whole, wherein the term is used mega
tives the idea. The term person as
used in the muct law seems to donate
specific person. and is used as the
antecedent of such personal pronouns
as hi1ns.an himself.
"The mulct law provides for the
signing and the filing of bond by
the principal. The punishment pre-
scribed may be both fine and impris-
onment. This is true not only for
maintaining liquor nuisance, but also
in contempt proceedings. 1t is clear
that a corporation, of course, could not
be imprisoned.
eff corporation may engage in the
sale of intoxicating liquors at retail,
the element of personal responsibility
would be almost entirely eliminated
To my mind this was not the intent
of the legislature, and the sale of in
toxicating liquors at retail by a cor
poration is not authorized. Respect
fully submitted,
III. W. BYERS,
"Attorney General of Iowa.
"sFeb. Is, 1908.
ITO the honorable executive council of
the state of Iowa.
I'm many of the cities Of the state
brewery companies own a large num-
Der of the saloons. The decision Of the
attorney general will stop that prac-
tice, In Davenport, for instance, there
was a controversy between the saloons
owned by the Rock Island and the
Davenport hreweries as to- whether
their saloons should observe the order
of the state to close up in accordance
with the mulct law. In Sioux City,
Davenport, Dubuque. Burlington, Iowa
looms are said to be largely owned by
brewery corporations.
1t is supposed that the saloons af-
fected by the decision will not abide
by it except that the court sustains it..
Probably cases will be brought to test
1t. Under the decision prosecution may
be brought against saloons which are
operated by corporations instead of in
dividuals, if within reasonable time
the property is not transferred.
When the saloons are owned by in
Gividuals instead Of corporations the
property not only will be subject to
levy and attachment for debt and for
judgments obtained by injured widows,
minors. etc. but the personal property
of the individuals operating the places
will be subject to such attachments,
<ETr> Keep III.