The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-06-11
CAN'T KEEPL LIQUOR
Topeka Club Case Decided by
Supreme Court.
Organization Has No Right to
Maintain Lockers"
VIOLATION OF LAW.
No Right to Maintain a Place
Where People Drink.
Privilege of Keeping Beverages
Might Be Abused.
Not Identical With Keeping LiQ-
uor at Home.


The supreme court today by its de-
cision made permanent the temporary
| injunction granted against the Topeka
club by Judge Dana in the Shawnee
district court some months ago. The
action was not criminal one, but
was quo warranto proceeding
against the club as a corporation, for
violating its corporate rights, powers,
and privileges.
The Topeka club is a social organ
| ization, composed of business and
professional men. 1t has long main
| tanned what is known as the locker
system" by which a member can keep
his own liquors in compartment at
the club for the use of himself and
his guests. The club does not provide
liquor for its members. Neither it nor
its officers has anything to do, either
directly or indirectly with the pur-
chase or sale of such liquors Each
member furnishes his own liquor The
state contended that the maintenance
of this locker system is in violation of
the statute which prohibits any per-
son, club or association from main
tanning a club room or similar place
in which any intoxicating liquor is
received or kept for the purpose of
use, gift, barter or sale as a bever-
age" The defendant denied that it
was guilty of any unlawful act, but
the court upheld the states conten-
ton. Justice Graves, in delivering the
opinion of the court said:
Clearly Violation of Law.
''It seems clear that the purpose of
the locker system, and it's only pur-
club to have intoxicating liquors
where they can be readily obtained
for consumption by themselves and
invited guests. as beverage. 1t does
not seem unreasonable therefore to
say the Topeka club keeps and main
tains place where intoxicating IL
quors are received and kept for use
as a beverage. This clearly violates
the law
The defendant contended that the
statute under which the proceeding
was brought, if interpreted as the
state claimed it should be, is invalid
because it violates the constitutional
provision that mo bill shall contain
more than one subject, which shall
be clearly expressed in it's title
The title of the act OF which this
statute is part is "An act to prohibit
the manufacture and sale of intoxi-
eating liquors. The defendant main
tanned that as the title embraced only
the manufacture and sale" of intoxi-
eating liquor the provision against ere
ce1V1nR OF keeping SUCH llQuOT 1OI
use as a beverage" was a subject not
expressed in the title and not pertain
ing to either "manufacture" or "sale,"
and that the statute was therefore
void. After stating that titles to leg
islative enactments should be con-
strued literally to uphold the law, and
not Gin a narrow and technical sense"
the court held that Everything con-
nected with the main purpose and rea-
sonably adapted to secure the objects
indicated by the title may be embraced
in the act without violating the consti-
tution'' The court said the expressed
purpose of this act was to prevent the
illegal sale of Intoxicating liquor, and
that the provision that such liquor
should not be received or kept for
purpose and within the scope of the
title of the act. 1t quoted from the
decisions of other courts holding that
such a provision is a necessary Incl
dent to a statute regulating the sale,
to secure it's efficient operation, and a
necessary precautionary provision to
prevent evasion of the prohibition to
SELL
Used as Cloak to Sell Liquor.
Continuing. Justice Graves said:
1.-The legislature doubtless believed
that If persons were permitted TO
maintain club rooms in which liquor
was kept for use as a beverage the
practice, however innocent in itself
when carried on in good faith, might
easily be converted into a medium for
| the sale of liquor under the form of
maintaining a club. and to prevent
| this practice forbade a course of con-
duct where sales if made would be
difficult to detect and punish.
1.-THE main and principal object of
this statute does not seem to be mere
! ly to prevent people from drinking
| their own liquor as a beverage, but it's
real purpose is to prevent the organi-
Of maintaining a place where a large
number of people are permitted to
keep Intoxicating liquor and use it as
| a beverage.
Not Same as Home.
''If it should be held that a law
which fnterdicts this practice is un-
| constitutional and void, or that the
right of a member of such an associa-
| tio, to invite guests to the clubroom,
| and there, with other members and
| their guests, indulge in drinking with
| out limit intoxicating liquors which he
provides and keeps in store there for
! right to invite the same guests to the
private hospitality of his home and
| there, as a part of the social pleasures
| of an evenings entertainment provide
| a limited quantity of wine, beer, or
| other intoxicating liquors, it seems
reasonable to assume that such or
! ganizations would rapidly multiply in
| number, and under the opportunities
| thus afforded the law would be evaded
| to such an extent that the difficulties
already encountered in its enforce
| ment would be greatly increased"
SUPREME COJTRT DECTSTONS