The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1909-02-18
THE SHATTUCK LAW-NEITHER
RETROACTIVE" NOR RE-
TROSPECTIVE'-WHY:

ffie saloea element in New Orleans |
and throughout the State are rejoicing |
over Judge Frank D. Chretien's inter
probation of the Shattuck law III its ap-
plication to saloons being within three
hundred feet ef church or school.
In this opinion, in the case of State
of Louisiana VS.. Hotel Grunewald,
Judge Chretien ccf the Criminal District
Court, has declared that as the law IS not
retroactive" in its provisions, the ques-
ton of fixing the method of determining
the distance of three hundred feet be-
tween churches and schools is left to the
discretion of the council.
y 1t also appears that the law, as inter
preted by Judge Chretien, is not re
prospective" and therefore does not ap-
ply to the saloons in existence before the
enactment of the law, which is operative
on and since January /, 1909.
1t is announced from New Orleans
that Judge Joshua G. Baker, also of the
Criminal District Court, concurs in the
opinion of Judge Chretien, and 1t is
-trumpeted that this view of the law, by
these two judges, supports the declara-
tons of City Attorney Gilmore, as ex-
pressed recently, and practically wipes
out" the construction of Attorney Cen
eral Guion. This opinion is also i'll full
accord with the announcement OF May
or Behrman as we'll as of others OF
prominence in New Orleans.
However, the Supreme Court may not
share these views of these learned
judges and attorneys, which, seemingly,
are inconsistent with equity and common
sense.
It may be recalled that soon after it
was discovered that the law as applied
to the three hundred feet distance from
a church or school would close the
Grmewald Hotel bar and several high
toned saloons~amd club houses OH Canal
street and adjacent to churches and
schools and colleges, that there were
heard the most tociferous protests from
the interests affected. 1t was then that
Representative Shattuck, when probed
By the saloon for an explanation of the
intent Of the law, began his series OF
rankings which have been delusive and
unsatisfactory to all those concerned,
pros and ants as well. In the role of
shifter or fence-rider, representative
Shsttuck has proven himself to be a
dismal failure, and he should undeceive
himself If he has imagined that he has,
at any time, misled the pros in his pre-
lenses At explanations which have failed
Of explaining.
Is, Representative Shattuck scape-
goat,
Is he not fathering law which was
aenacted IN the saloons interest and ap-
proved by persons in high authority in
the State?
To say the least, the two striking and
MOI extraordinary features embraced i"
lhe opinions Of the exponders of the
hattuck law is that it is neither ere
fsunctive" nor Retrospective. /"
I Il has always been the impression, if
not the rule of the law, that an enact
a ut becomes effective OH the day and
date fixed for its operation, and it does
not provide for the past, but for the fu-
ture.
AS the Shattuck law is not "retroac-
tive" in the sense that it is not affecting
what is past, but that which is of he flu
tire, the license granted saloon OF
hotel or . club to sell liquor Or intoxi-
cants or anything else is of no effect
ara Is null and void from and after the
,aate limit for the year for which it has
{ been issued.
An licenses expire at the end of thu
4 year, being issued as rule from the Isl
day Of January Of say 1903 to December
s a. 1908. The saloon or hotel or clut
house being without a license on ane
after Jssty /, 1902 is liable under thu
law. A n law is not retroactive, the
license ulilth issued to saloon the yea,
xear expifne December 81, 1908. car
have no yalue. since it can have no ref
erea,ce to what is passed.
Practically he saloon which has ope
rated under alicense which expired De
ceanher 81, Ipc6, is dead unless revived
81 another tnse with authority begin
nine from nary I, 1909, and expiring