Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1915-10-26
QUERIES ARE ANSWERED
ATTORNEY GENERAL BROWN IN
TERPRETS SECTION OF ACT.
Drug Stores Limited to Ethyl Alcohol
and Sales Will Be Made at
Peril of Seller.

trict attorneys throughout the stat
are receiving constant inquiries from
citizens and organizations as to diff
ferent provisions of the new law. Mos
of these have been referred to At
torney-General Brown, who has com
pleted his replies to the queries. These
have been combined into single opin
ion, wherein the question asked is
given first and the attorney general 's
answer below.
The series of questions and answers
which cover practically every phase
of the prohibition law, follows:
81. In the case of the owner and
proprietor of drug store who is moi
a druggist but employs registered
pharmacist to sell drugs, and dispense
and compound prescriptions of medi-
cal practitioners, who must execute
and file the $3.50 bond provided foI
in section 2 Of chapter 141, general
laws of Oregon of 1915, before alco-
hol can be lawfully sold at the drug
store?
''To this question my answer is
that the bond must be executed and
fled by a registered pharmacist. Sec
tion 5 Of the prohibition act, provides
that it shall be unlawful for any per-
son to manufacture, sell or barter in
toxicating liquor within the state, ex-
cept as provided for in said act. Sec
tion of said act provides that reg
istered pharmacists may sell ethyl al
cohol for medicinal, pharmaceutical,
scientific and mechanical purposes,
and for external use and application,
only upon complying with the provis-
ions of the act, and that before said
pharmacist may sell ethyl alcohol he
must file with the county clerk in the
county in which he resides a bond run
ming to the state of Oregon in the
sum of $3.50. The next paragraph of
said section provides that the clerk
shall then issue to the pharmacist two
books of so affidavits each, upon the
payment Of So for approving and fill
ing said bond, and the sum Of so
cents for each book of affidavits.
'"To my mind it is manifest that
the bond must be given by the regis
tered pharmacist, where the proprie-
tor of the store is not authorized by
the laws Of Oregon to practice phar-
macy.
Second-If the proprietor in the
above case insists on having pre-
scription filled prescribing alcohol in
the case of the prescription having
been written by a physician, who is
at the time of writing the prescription
q man of Incorporate habits or ad-
dicted to the use of narcotic drugs,
who of the two is guilty Of violating
the law?
"To this question our answer is
that under the law of this state both
would be guilty of an offense. The
proprietor who directed the sale and
the pharmacist who filed the prescrip-
ton and made the sale are equally
guilty.
"See section 1910, Lord Oregon
Laws, which reads as follows:
All persons concerned in the com
mission of crime, whether it be fel-
ony or misdemeanor, and whether
they directly commit the act consti-
tuting the crime, or aid and abet in
its commission, though not present,
are principals and to be tried and
punished as such.
"Said section has recently been in
terpreted by our Supreme court in the
case of the state VS.. Geor, Il Oregon +
sol, and in many prior eases
"3. 1t the sale is made upon an
affidavit to a person who did not
know that the person to whom the
sale was made was person of intem-
perate habits, would ignorance of such
habits be a defense7
"To this question our answer is IN
the negative. The pharmacist sells
alcohol at his peril, and if he sells
without knowledge of the PERSONS
habits, he takes his chances. lgnor-
ance of such habits is not lawful
defense, but it is a matter that the
court can properly consider IN mitl-
CATION of the penalty to be inflicted.
The Oregon Supreme court has held
in many cases that in purely statu- |
tory crimes, unless there is ineirporat-
ed into the legislation definition of
the offense, the element of knowledge
on the part of the defendant, the in
tent with which the act was done is
not an ingredient of the offense, and
that lack of knowledge on the part of
the defendant is not defense.
"a. From and after January l,
1916, can a registered pharmacist fill
a prescription for intoxicating liquor
other than alcoholf
"To this question our answer is
no. The law plainly provides that the
only intoxicating liquor that can be
sold BY a registered pharmacist is
ethyl alcohol for medicinal, pharma-
ceutical, mechanical and scientific
purposes.
"5. Is a prescription stating that
The alcohol is required for rnedicinaln
use sufficient without any other spec
ifications or directions for the use Of
The alcohol
"This question we answer in the
negative. The law provides that such
,,.,.o,;,,f;o, written hv the Musician