Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-07-24
nished prior to the time the act took
LeeisIature Within Il. Rioht.,

uiSiicu PRIOR 10 the UlI10 the act LOOK
effect.
Legislature Within Its Rights.
In Thompson vs.. District of Allison,
102 Iowa "a. our supreme court in pass
ing upon an act authorizing school
districts against which judgments had
been rendered prior to the passage OF
the act to issue bonds to pay such
judgments, held that the act covered
judgments rendered between the pas
sage Of the act and its taking effect as
well as judgments rendered pior to the
passage of the act.
This is one of the cases upon which
it is claimed the former opinion of this
department is erroneous. The case,
however, is dn entire harmony with our
holding when 1t is remembered what
the legislature was trying to do-pro-
vide method by which the district
might pay judgments rendered against
it by the issuance of bonds-there
would be no sense or reason IN holding
that the legislature only intended to
rendered before the law was approved
by the governor. It was just as Inn
portant to the district and to the judg-
ment holders, that judgments rendered
after that time be provided for as it
was that those rendered during the
earlier period be taken care of: hence.
1t was properly held that the statute
covered both periods.
These decisions established beyond
question the power of the legislature to
pass what, in this discussion, has been
called retroactive" and Retrospective"
laws, but 1t is suggested that such laws
are unconstitutional when they inter-
fere with vested rights or impair the
obligations of contracts. Granted. This
doctrine and rule, however, has no APP
plication to the saloon business, and
could not be successfully invoked even
in a state where a person held an alb
solute license to sell liquors. much less
In state where the sale is made I'M
lawful as it is in Iowa.
In Columbus City VS.. Cutcomp, 81
Iowa 672. Chief Justice Day speaking
for the court. put this question beyond
controversy by holding that:
The very decided Weight of au-
thority holds that licenses to sell liquor
are not contracts between the state and
the person licensed, giving the latter
ture of contracts, but are merely tenn
porary permits to do what otherwise
would be an offense, issued in the eXer
else of police powers. and subject to
the direction of government. which
may revoke them as it deems fit" State
VS.. Mullenhoff, "A Iowa 271. West VS.
Bishop, ITO Iowa 40. Wallace VS.
Reno SO L. r. A. 337.
AS to the Saving Clause.
1t is suggested that if the legislature
intended to limit the saving clause OF
exemption contained in Section to
resolutions outstanding on April Is ii
was easy for them to say so, and be-
cause they did not it is evident 1T in
tended to exempt all resolutions passed
prior to the 4th day of July. A com
plete answer to this is that if it in
tended to exempt all resolutions passed
prior to that date 1t was just as easy
for it to have said so as to have used
the word now" when July was in
tended.
AS to the fourth proposition there
can be no question but what under the
statute the court would be bound to sc
construe this act as to prevent evasion
The statute reads:
Courts and jurors shall construe this
chapter so as to prevent evasion" Code
section 2431. See Cox VS.. Burnham
supra. Wheelock VS.. Madison county