The record., 1911-04-06
50 GIFTS PER YEAR. III ADYARG.
THURSDAY, AFRIL ., 1911.
Court Of Appeals on Soft Drinks.

Court OF Appeals on Soft Drinks.
Below we are giving the mos; i'm
portant features of the recent decis-
ion OF the Count Of Appeals in its
OF ,ion in a case appealed from the
city OF Jellico, city OF the sixth
class. This city had enacted an
ordinance similar TO the one we
have in force. and the endorsements
was resisted in the courts, with the
result that it was finally brought to
the Court of Appeals, which upheld
the law and the decisions that had
been given by the courts en- route
to this highest court Judge Carroll
rendered the opinion, in part as
follows:
The words "soft drinks are not
defined by statute or by the ordin-
ance, but in recent years they have
come to have a well-known and
popular US in this State, and are
common. ua!erstood to mean non
intoXi,a,iu- beverages that are sold
in places where there was formerly
sold intoxicating liquors, and may
be said to have come into use with
the abolition OF the bar room and
other places where liquor was sold
by licensed dealers. While includ-
ing lemonade, soda water, mineral
waters and other innocent and
harmless beverages that are and
49, ~----.-g, --~5 49, a--.-+atfJj' - =.
in reference to vmalt mead,v "near
beerp and other alcoholic decoc-
tiOns, invented 10 take the place OF
intoxicating drinks. "Soft drinks
that contain any per cent of alcohol
are regarded as hurtful to the morals
and health of the community, and
their sale might well come within
the control aud regulation of the
police power. But such vsoft-
drinks" as lemonade, soda water,
and mineral waters that arc pure
and wholesome, and contain no al
cohol, are not detrimental to the
public good and their sale does not
need police regulation or control.
\ municipality under its right of
classification for revenue or police
purposes might well impose one H.
cense fee for the sale of drinks that
contain any per cent of alcohol,
and different license fee for the
sale of those that contain no al
col Ol whatever. 1t might further
classify by their names beverages
that do or do not contain alcohol.
and exact for the sale of each class
a different fee. In short, the right
of classification and the correspond
ing right to impose the same or a
different tax may be exercised when
ever the classification can be made
upon reasonable basis. To what
extent this power might be carried,
II is not necessary to decision of
the question before US to determine.
Ii is sufficient to say that the right
of classification confers the anthor-
ity to fix a higher license fee for
one class of beverages than another
and what would be a reasonable H.
ocnse tax for one class might be un-
reasonable fer another. To illus
trate, license of fifty dollars, or
one hundred dollars, or more, for
the sale of vsoft drinks like vnext
TO beer" that contains any quantity |
of per cent Of alcohol might be |
reasonable; while the sane tax upon |
the sale Of "soft drinks" such as
lemonade that contains no alcohol, |
might be unreasonable. 1t might
be arbitrary and oppressive to fix |
the license fee for selling useful and |
pure mineral or healthgiving waters
at a sum that would virtually pro
hibit their sale, when il would not
be arbitrary or oppressive to fix a
license fee at prohibitive figure |
for the sale Of beverages that are
not wholesome or ueoessafy. lfsp |
peilant was selling one clsssof sof,
drinks, - The tax would not be so
unreasonable or oppressive IS 70
warrant rs- in interfering. II he was
selling another kind, then it might