The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1908-01-30
The Drug Store Incident.

Acting under the belief that tha
drug stores OF Hood River have been
selling liquor as beverage. and IN
large quantities, Marshal CANCER In.
duced parties to 90 into the stores
and purchase liquor In bottles, then
promptly had the proprietors srIesi
ed. Geo. s, Miller, Of the hill, was
the first and he fought the case, hut
was found guilty and fined S75. Keir
X Cass ani Esson Il Currin were Tho
two othefs to follow In few days
and they paid fine Of like amount.
Opinion as IN the Justice In the
means OF getting evidence, Is divided
among the prominent citizens. II
appears to be the belief that the Law
was being haeTanlly violated by the
drug stores and the city authorities
have been continually taunted with
their inability or unwillingness tc
prevent 1t. To all such have been
given the answer that prosecution
would result Il the evidence could be
obtained.
From quiet Investigations and IN
quiries made from disiuterested peo.
rle who have opportunities to find
out from their frequent presence In
and around the drug stores. we are OF
the firm opinion that the law has moi
been tiagrantIy violated as many sup
pose. 1t Is true that any sale made
by drug store without a doctor
prescription, even II given to persons
to use for the most urgent case OF
medical relief, Is violation of the
law. Ii is true that great many
families keep whiskey or brandy in
the house for medicinal purposes and
most OF them would prefer to buy II
In drug store. We do not believe
the public generally are opposed to
drug stores selling liquor for this
purpose. The selling OF liquor AZ a
beverage, however, belongs to the ga.
loon, and should be confined to those
laces.
A. s. Keir, of the firm of Keir &
Cass, stated In an interview that his
hrm has teen endeavoring to live up
to the spiiit OF the law and emphatic
ally states that he store refuses in
variabiy to sell liquor to persons who
wish to buy 1t for u,e as a beverage
and usually requires prescription
from physician In dispensing it,
tie may have In few rare instances
waived the prescription, Were he
knew the customer we'll and was az.
sured tina it was wanted for medicin
al purposes. This was the case with
the lady who made the complaint
She was regular customer of the
store and 1t was taken for granted
that she could not possibly want the
liquor for any other than medical
purposes
"lt is very difficult" said Mr..
keir, "to require perfectly respect
able customer to go to doctor and
nay a dollar for prescription In
order to get 25 cents worth of bran
dy, which will probably last the fam.
ily year for medical purposes and
we really ought to have some legal
protection In such cases, such as a
reasonable license to sell liquor under
such circumstances. There is vast
difference between such case anl
chat of a drug store running blind
tiger o. booze joint, and | wish
einphatically to state that think
hat In this case, although we we're
technically liable, we have not had a
very square deal. We would take our
LIedicine without word IL the au.
tborities could make a case against
us of selling liluo. to any one who
would be likely to use 1t as bever-
ge, but in such case as Ghis we
Lhink that the efforts of those In au-
thority might we'll be used in punish
ing infractions of the law which are
4 Ar more morally wrong than was our
uifeuse,h