Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-04-19
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA SAYS
MOON LAW BECAME EFFEC.
TIVE APRIL IS, 1909.
MANY PERMITS MADE
INVALID BY DECISION
All Saloons in Cities in Excess Of One
For Each 1000 Of Population Must
Go Out of Business-Court Says In
tent Of Law Must Be FoIlowed-The
Courts Findings.

Des Moines. April 19.-Numerous sa-
looms over the state will have to go
out OF business by reason Of an inter-
probation placed on the law by the SUI
preme court of Iowa.
The law in question is commonly
known as the Moon law and provides
that there shall be no more than one
saloon for each loco of the population
in an yclty or town.
The question raised was whether
this law became effective July 4, 1909,
or April 10, 1909. the date it was signed
by the governor.
The supreme court held that it be-
came effective April Is, despite the fact
that 1t contained no emergency clause
providing that it should become oper-
alive upon its publication in a news
paper il the state
The rule ordinarily followed when
new laws do not go into effect upon
publication, is that they become effec-
tive July 4, and believing that this rule
held good in this case. numerous sa-
loon men fastened to secure licenes af-
ter the passage of the bill by the Thir-
ty-third general assembly and before
July 1.
Many Licenses InvaIidated.
All such licenses secured in towns
where there was more than one saloon
for each 1000 inhabitants are invali-
dated and must be recalled by the cit
les and towns Issuing them.
\ The case which brought forth the
opinion of the high court was test
in ar in INV II
Sawyer against T. j. Gallagher and
others. The action was tried on an
agreed statement Of facts. Gallagher
secured his license July 90, 1909, after
the passage Of the Moon bill and be-
fore July 4. At that time there was
moe than one saloon to every 1000 in
ha bitants in Sioux City. That was
agreed in the statement of facts. The
only question involved was as to the
time the law became operative. If the
contention of the drys that it became
effective upon being signed by the gov
ernor, was held correct, then perma-
nent Injunction should Issue against
Gallagher. it was agreed. If it was
| held, however, that the law did not be-
come effective until July 4, then CAL
| lagher should retain his license.
Vets Lose in Lower Court.
| On this agreed statement of facts the
| case was tried before Judge 2. R. Gay
| nor in the Woodbury. district court. He
1 held with the dry and issued a psrma-
nent injunction against Gallagher An
appeal, was then taken to the supreme
! court.
| In the high court 1t was commended
by attorneys for the vets that the rule
established by law was that all new
/ laws not bearing publication emergen-
cy clauses should become effective
July 4, after their passage. The fact
that the bill itself provided that ION
and after the passage Of this act it
should be illegal to operate more than
one saloon for each 1000 people. really
meant July 4, the attorneys commended.
To put any other construction upon the
phrase, they argued, would be to make
the law retroactive in it's effect, some
thing for which there is no warrant in
the law or in the language Of the act
itself.
Numerous cases were cited to show
how this rule was recognized by courts
all over the land.
The supreme court, in the opinion,
which is written by Justice Weaver.
admits that ordinarily the phrase in
! question would have the meaning con-
| tended for by the vets. However, the
| high court says, the rule Is not applic-
able with absolute universally. Fur
! Their, the high court says, the object
sought to be attained by the law must
be considered. In this instance 1t is
clear the opinion states, that the object
sought was to limit the number of
saloons This could be done only by
making the law effective upon its pas
sage and approval by the governor.
| This was the intent Of the assembly,
| the opinion says. and there are no
grounds for believing that the legisla-
ture intended to make it an open sea-
son for saloon licenses between the
time of the passage Of the bill and
! July 4.
| Must Consider Intent.
Speaking as to the contention OF the
vets as to the meaning OF the phrase.
ION and after the passage of this act"
Justice Weaver writes for the court:
| 1T would therefore seem that there
is no invariable or cast iron rule by
| which the WORDS now under consfr1lc-
| ton are given the same significance.
and that in seeking their true interpre-
tation or construction the subject mat
ter Of the enactment and the evil, If
any, sought to be corrected and the
object sought to be attained are to be
| given due consideration.
1--WE are Of the opinion, however, that
the statute now before US does not
present a case in which the soundness
or unsoundness Of the proposition just
stated as a matter Of serious import.
CounsePse contention that the consti-
tutional provision for making all en-
actments, not containing an emergency
clause, go into effect the fourth day of
July following their passage, can not
be evaded by construction which
shall make them relate back and oper-
ate as il in fact such emergency clause
had been attached, may be conceded.
We also agree that a statute will not
be given a retroactive effect unless the
language Of the act itself or the evil
dent purpose to be thereby effected
clearly justify It.
"But we are persuaded that to sustain
the decree Of the trial court Il II not
necessary to violate this constitutional