The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-04-27
FOR REARGUMENT Of
COMMISSION FEE CASE TO Be MADE
Vital Point in Suit Of 6. A. E. Finlayson VS.. City Clerk
Was Not Recognized by the Supreme Court
Complete Opinion Of Liquor CAGE Received.

the wholesale traffic in intoxicating II.
quors, that is. in quantities Of .fvesgal-
Ions or more, was not prohibited, nor
was any attempt made to require q
license therefor IT. however. a whole
saler sells in quantities less than five
gallons, such. sales are illegal unless
he has a license. The special char
tiers. granted to the municipalities OF
the state. prior to the adoption of the
constitutional amendment forbidding
special legislation. conferred, so far as
We are. advised. upon such municipali-
ties the power to license and regulate
the sale of Intoxicating liquors in sub
stantially the same general language
as used in Laws 1895, G. g.. s. 1876. here
In question; yet this is the first case
presented to this court in which the
claim was made that such general
language authorized municipalities to
exact a license for the sale Of intoxi.
eating liquors in quantities of five gal.
Ions or more. The practical construc.
ton of such charter provisions by
municipal and state officers charged
with the duty of enforcing the LIQUOR
laws of the state, has uniformly been
h a they did not confer upon NUM-
cipaltttes the authority to require a
license for the sale of intoxicating H.
quors In quantities of. five gallons or
more. This court has repeatedly rec.
ognized this practical construction and
impliedly at least approved of it. a,
correct. Thus. in State VS.. Minnesota
club. 1O6 Minn.,. 515-520, the matter
was summed up in these words:
The line separating and retailing
FOR h w~holesaling of intoxicating H.
quors Is a certain quantity-hve gal
lons-and brewers and wholesalers
are not required to take out a Hence
Sc long HQ they an MT onI1 ~ -oxnf0,0
The case Of State VS.. Orth, 80 MINI,
$50. while not directly in point be-
cause of general statute and not a
charter provision was under consider
alton. Is nevertheless very cogent. The
prosecution in that case was based
upon a provision of the high license
law. Laws 1887. G. 6. S. 4, which pro-
vided that:
Whoever sells, barters. gives, away.
uous. vinous. fermented, or malt H.
quors, without first having obtained
license therefor agreeably to the laws
OF this state, shall be deemed guilty
OF a misdemeanor."
1t Is to be noted that this language
is Just as general and comprehensive
az the statute herein question. The
prosecution in the case cited contend-
ed that the statute applied to all sales
" VI ieSS tQ0n HVe gall
Ions. and this was practically conceded
by the court If the statute were to be
construed literally or apart from 9th
er provisions of the laws, but held:
'"AH the provisions of the law. in
regard to procuring the license. the
contents of the license. and the reru-
lating the business, point uneouiyocai.
~ 70 me retail trade. making sales in
small Quantities to consumers. as the
business for which a license is re-
quired; and. taking the laws as. a
whole. we conclude the Legislature did
not intend to depart from the former
policy OF h state. and require II.
censes for any but the retail trade.
We have examined the cases from
other Jurisdictions which appellant
claims support his contention n And
that h decision in each case turnad
upon the construction of local statutes
IN many respects unlike our own.
hence they are not in point. Constru.
ing the charter provisions here in
question according to the legislative
mention. as gathered from the whole
Ezisiation of h state with reference
TO the subject of licensing the sale NJ
intoxicating liquors, and the uniform
practical construction of such Iegfsla-
ton. we hold that they do not author.
lie the licensing of the sale of intoxi.
eating liquors in quantities of five val.
Ions or more. "
Order affirmed,
Start. Chief Justice.