The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1912-05-02
!. Last Legislature Said to Have
Legdized Sunday Beer Sales.
NIGER IN THE W00Dp|LE
Act Restricting Sale of Malt Products
Makes No Reference to
the Sabbath. -.8.
Especial Correspondence.)


name" The last legislature-itr repre-
sented the best efforts of the Mime
sofa primary law, I am told-passed
law designed to curtail the indis-
criminate sale of malt It was drastic
on its face; it had to be, as the near
beer scheme was on the eve of put
ting every act designed to safeguard
the sale Of malt products out of bust
ness. In the absence of a law govern
ing its sale blind pigs became numer-
Gus, pool rooms f1ourished, the youth
OF the land was debauched and drug
stores added to their revenues in a
manner that made them a decided
competitor of the licensed saloon.
Then came the come back, resolutions
by Women's clubs, severe fines and
sentences imposed by the courts and
lastly an appeal to the legislature. In
the meantime, however, the courts
were active and under the existing
laws they seldom failed of a convic-
ton when the stuff was found to con-
tain more than the legal alcoholic con-
tent. They were upheld by the SUI
preme court on an appeal. In Henne-
pin county especially hundreds of bar
rels OF this near beer were confscated
and it was even banished from the
cafes and drug stores. The alcoholic
uncertainty of malt worried the sellers
and they concluded that the game was
not worth the candle. 1t was the
same In st. Paul. The stuff was
barred from soda water fountains by
the proprietors themselves.
:. \ =
Every brewery in Minnesota is a
manufacturer of malt, in fact malt is
a constituent part of their product,
and despite the popular idea that it is
rule or ruin with them the proprietors
OF the breweries were the first to take
notice of the popular clamor to regu-
late the sale of malt. No opposition
was made when the bill was offered
In the senate, in fact that body de-
clared it had their best wishes and it
passed in this form with the official
signature of Governor Eberhart at
tached:
Chapter 131-S. F. No. 423. An act
to prohibit the keeping for sale, SELL
ing, giving away or disposing of malt
liquors, whether intoxicating or not,
except in licensed saloons, and pro-
viding punishment therefor. Be it
enacted by the legislature of the state
of Minnesota:
Sale of malt liquors except in H.
censed places, prohbited.-Section 1.
The keeping for sale, selling, giving
away, disposing of malt liquors, wheth-
er Intoxicating or not, in any other
place than a licensed saloon, is here
by prohibited.
Violation misdemeanor.-Sec. 2.
The keeping for sale, selling, giving
away, disposing of malt liquors, wheth-
er Intoxicating or not, in any other
place than a licensed saloon, is hereby
declared to be misdemeanor and
shall be punished by a fine of not less
than five dollars nor more than one
hundred dollars or by Imprisonment
IN the county Jail of not more than
ninety days. Provided, however, that
drug stores may keep and sell such
malt liquors for medicinal purposes,
only. And provided further, that moth
ing herein shall prevent the manufac-
turers of such malt liquors and the
wholesalers thereof from keeping for
sale and selling and disposing of such
malt liquors.
Sec. 8. This act shall take effect
and be in force from and after July 1,
1911. Approved April 13, 1911.
That Governor Eberhart signed the
act is nothing to his discredit. It
passed both houses almost unanimous
~ and might be said to represent
popular demand. He had no other al
tentative. Besides I know quite a
number of members of both houses
who gave the bill their vote honestly.
!. + :.
From a layman's point of view l
cannot disabuse my mind from the
fact that the law is everything that it
reads. 1t looks good. This impression
is an offhand one, but the niger in
the woodpile becomes more apparent
as common sense takes the place of
first view. That act, as one legal ex-
pert outlined to me, practically puts
at naught every restriction of the past
covering the sale of malt liquors
whether Intoxicating or not. AS placed
on the statute books it is a law unto
itself, the latest regarding the sale of
malt products with no relation to those
measures that have gone before or
even amendatory. In the case of
beer all restrictive measures have
been removed. AS I have advised, just
read the law: Whether intoxicating
or not malt liquor shall not be sold ex-
cept in licensed Saloons That sounds
good, but notice: provided that
drug stores may keep and sell such for
medicinal purposes only. And provid-
ed further, that nothing herein shall
prevent the manufactures of such
malt or wholesalers of such malt from