Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-07-24
Special to Times-Republican.

caustic criticisms against those who
criticized his ruling on the Moon sa-
loon law, Attorney General Byers'
statement charging his first opinion
contains many citations substantiating
his claims. He presents a. strong ar
gument in favor of his contention that
saloon permits issued by city councils
after April Is are illegal. General Byers
said in part:
Point at Issue.
To begin with, 1t is important to
question is not when the act took effect
a publication clause every
one understands that acts of our leg
islature take effect and become opera
tive on the fourth day of July unless
some later date is fixed in the act it,
self-nor ds there any constitutional
question of any kind involved. The
simple question is. what resolutions of
consent was the general assembly deal
ing with when it adopted section 2 of
the so-called Moon act. and used this
LII XII SlliGS anu loMllS
where a greater number of persons
than are provided in section one ~
hereof Gone to every thousand popu-
lation), now, hold resolutions of con-
sent to sell intoxicating liquors at re-
tail, it shall not be mandatory =. . for
city Or town councils to cancel or
Withdraw sufficient number of such
resolutions of consent to comply with
the provisions of section one G) here
of, and such resolutions of consent
may be renewed. etc."-was the legis-
lature dealing with resolutions then
existing. or was it dealing with such
resolutions of consent as may have
been outstanding on the 4th of July
following the passage of the act; or in
other words, was the operation of the
act making invalid resolutions of con-
sent in excess of one to each thou
sand of the population confined to res
olutions passed subsequent to the 4th
day of July.
We hold that the exemption or ex-
ception covered by section two of the
act applied only to the persons hold
ing resolutions of consent at the time
the act was approved by the governor
and that all new resolutions-new in
the sense that they were not renewals
Of the resolutions passed prior ITO April
15-in excess of one for each one thou
sand population We're invalid.
This holding is objected to by the
authorities above quoted, because, as
they say, to so hold is to give to the
law a retroactive" and Retrospective
effect. This it is insisted in the Ian
on Of of fha OH
only in contravention of the recognized
half dozen decisions of the Iowa SUI
preme court"
Reasons for Opinion.
We insist the decision is sound:
First-Because the act is a. remedial
one-deals with a recognized evil-was
enacted to restrict and to some extent
cure the evil, and, therefore, to fully
effectuate the purpose of the act it
must operate upon both past and flu
ture transactions and conditions.
Second-To hold otherwise would
make the act mere trick" and give it
a ridiculous and absurd effect-in-
stead of curing any existing evil and
preventing its continuation in the flu
ture, it would increase the evil.
Third-It was the evident intention
of the legislature to limit the exemp-
ton and exception to the persons hold
ing resolutions Of consent on the day
the act became a law by the signature
and APPROVAL of the governor.
Fourth-The statutes of the state
privide that the courts shall construe
the chapter relating to Intoxicating IL
quors so as to prevent evasion
In support Of the first proposition our
supreme court in an opinion, written
by Mccain, says:
"There can be no controversy about
the proposition that the courts will
construe a statute as prospective only
in the absence of language indica ting
the intention that it shall be RETROSPECT
tive. - i. The language of the statute
is presumed to refer to the date of its
taking effect, but a we'll settled ex-
recognized when the statute Is rene
dial. If the statute refers to an existing
condition, it is applicable. altho The
condition is one which has been in ex-
isrence before the taking effect of the
statute, and the construction gives II
| therefore retroactive effect, notwith-
standing the language OF the statute IS
prospective only. . Arremedial stat
ute will be, construed as applicable To
a. elexisting and continuing cond!-
tfup" Galusha VS.. Wendt, ia Iowa SOB
There is a class of cases or objects
requiring. legislative relief or assist
ance, in.which it is'not only competent
but where from consideration of con-
trolling public necessity it would seem
to be the dictate of wisdom that the
law making body should give to their
enactments a retroactive operation
Bartruff VS.. Remey, Is Iowa 257
at is a canon of construction of q
remedial statute rnar three Things are
to be considered-the old law, the mis-
chief and the. remedy: that is how The
law stood atathe making of the act;
what the mischief was for which the
law did not provide, and what remedy
for this mischief has been provided
And 1t is the business of the courts &C
to construe the act as to suppress the
mischief and advance the remedy"
In Walker vs. Mississippi Valley 4
Western Railway Company, Cent
Law Journal. Judge Dillon, in passing
upon an act Of the legislature of the
state OF Missouri which gave to con.
tractors and laborers prior lien to al
mortgages or membranes placed up.
on the railroad property subsequent tt
the passage of the act, held that tn.
phrase Subsequent to the passage o.
the act" meant subsequent to the ap.
prevail by the governor. and CAV.
/ ~ %I,a 1ot 4Jtoxe