The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-03-21

An opinion that will doubtless be of interest to Bridgeport druggists has been given by Attorney General John H. Light to the State Commission on Pharmacy on the question whether a person who applies for a druggists liquor license to the County Commits sioners, shall be required to obtain certificate from the Pharmacy Com mission to establish his suitability within the meaning of the law. The Attorney General is of the opinion that it is the duty of the County commissioners to require the appli- cant to furnish a certificate. The opinion in full is as follows:
 Hartford, March IA, 1912. Commission of Pharmacy, Hartford,
 Conn.
 Gentlemen-You ask my opinion as to whether the County Commissioners of each county may grant license to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquor to any druggist who has not obtained from the Commission of Pharmacy a certificate stating that he is a pharmacist in good standing and is a proper person to sell liquors under all forms of druggists license.
 Chapter 174 of the public acts of 1909 authorizes the County Commis- sioners of each county to license suit able persons to sell spirituous and in- toxicating liquors; and section 19 of chapter PIG of the public acts of 1909 regulates granting of such licenses to druggists. No person is suitable D in the meaning of the law, who has failed to qualify himself for a license by obtaining from the Commission of Pharmacy the certificate required by section of chapter 264 of the public acts of 1911.
 ie, f1of Coll plicants for license to sell snirituous and intoxicating liquors under any form of a druggists license shall, be- fore making application for such li- cerse to sell liquors. secure from the Commission of Pharmacy a certifi- cate stating that the applicant is a pharmacist in good standing and is also a proper person to sell, under all forms of druggists license, liquors not to be drunk on the prem ises.'' This is police regula tion in the interest of the general public, and it's purpose is to prevent improrer persons from obtaining a druggists s of pharmacy is under the regulation and control of the Comm ssion of Pharmacy, and the Legislature evil dently considered such commission better able to decide whether any pharamict licensed by it is a suitable
  druggists license.
 Many of the enactmentS Of our liquor laws were separately made, but they must be treated as having form ed in the minds of the enacting body parts of a connected whole, and be taken together and construed as one system, though they may not refer to each other.
 It has been held that where one statute is added to another statute on | the same subject, without repeating any part of it, the provisions of both must be construed together. Pearce vs. Atwood, 13 Mass, 324, 34A:
 Van Riper vs. Essex, P. R. Board, 2S N J. l.. 23.
 Therefore I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the County Commis- sioners of each county to refuse to grant a license to any druggist under section 19 of chapter 216 of the pub- lie acts of 1909 until such applicant has obtained from the Commission of Pharmacy the certificate required by section of chapter 264. of the pub lie acts of 1911. It would be a convenient practice for the County Commissioners to re- quire all applicants for license to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors under the form of a druggists license to state in their applications that they had secured from the Commission of Pharmacy the certificate required by i said statute.
 Respectfully submitted.
 l JOHN H. LIGHT, | Attorney General.